Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desclos et al (US 2014/0091974 A1), hereinafter Desclos. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Desclos (Figure 7) teaches a device and method of operating the device comprising;
a battery 61/62/63;
a main printed circuit board (PCB) coupled to the battery 59;
a daughter PCB (top surface of 51) separated from the main PCB by a first aperture; and
a dual-inverted L antenna (DILA) 52 having a first leg (long leg) and a second leg (short leg) configured to generate radio frequency (RF) radiation at a first frequency (para [0061]), wherein the DILA is electrically coupled to the daughter PCB, and wherein a second aperture (area devoid of metallization on surface of 51) is defined between the daughter PCB and the legs of the DILA.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desclos.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 14, Desclos (para [0061]) further teaches an inductor-capacitor (LC) tank circuit coupled to the DILA. Desclos does not explicitly mention that the LC tank circuit is configured to generate RF radiation at a second frequency. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the LC tank circuit to generate RF radiation at a second frequency in order to improve the bandwidth of the antenna.
Claims 2-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desclos in view of Bevelacqua (US 2016/0079660 A1). (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 2, as applied claim 1, Desclos (para [0061]) further teaches an inductor-capacitor (LC) tank circuit coupled to the DILA.
Desclos does not explicitly mention that the inductor extending between the daughter PCB and the main PCB.
Bevelacqua (Figures 4 and 5, para [0031] and [0046] to [0051]) teaches inductors arranged between different PCBs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Desclos to include an inductor extending between the daughter PCB and the main PCB, as taught by Bevelacqua, doing so would effectively enhance the antenna bandwidth.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, as applied to claims 2 and 15 respectively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the LC tank circuit to leverage eddy currents by providing constructive E-fields generated across the first aperture and the second aperture in order to improve the overall efficiency of the antenna.
Regarding claim 4, Desclos/Bevelacqua teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 3, except explicitly mention that the DILA first leg is wider than the DILA second leg. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the DILA first leg to be wider than the DILA second leg, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Desclos/Bevelacqua teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 4, except explicitly mention a mechanical capacitance is configured to be generated as a function the second aperture and a width and length of the first leg. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure a mechanical capacitance to be generated as a function the second aperture and a width and length of the first leg for optimum efficiency.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Desclos/Bevelacqua teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 2 and 15, respectively, except explicitly mention that a mechanical inductance is configured to be generated as a function of a width and length of the inductor. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure a mechanical inductance to be generated as a function of a width and length of the inductor for optimum efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Desclos/Bevelacqua teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 2, except explicitly mention that the LC tank circuit is configured to generate RF radiation at a second frequency. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the LC tank circuit to generate RF radiation at a second frequency in order to improve the bandwidth of the antenna.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, as applied to claim 7, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure first frequency and the second frequency to be the same in order to reduce SAR.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 7, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure first frequency and the second frequency to be different in order to improve the bandwidth of the DILA.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, Desclos (Figure 7, para [0061]) further teaches that the DILA and the LC tank circuit are stacked. Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the DILA and the LC tank circuit to be coplanar to achieve a desired polarization for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 9, Desclos (Figure 7, para [0061]) further teaches that the DILA and the LC tank circuit are stacked.
Regarding claim 12, Desclos teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except further comprising a flexible circuit board (FCB) coupling the main PCB to the battery.
Bevelacqua (Figures 4 and 5, para [0031] and [0046] to [0051]) teaches a flexible circuit board coupling a main PCB to a battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Desclos to include a flexible circuit board coupling a main PCB to a battery, as taught by Bevelacqua, doing so would provide enhanced durable connection and improved signal integrity which is ideal for wearables.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 12, Bevelacqua (Figures 4 and 5, para [0031] and [0046] to [0051]) teaches that the battery having a case electrically coupled to the FCB.
Regarding claim 16, Desclos teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 15, except explicitly mention that the LC tank circuit comprises the inductor extending between the daughter PCB and the main PCB.
Bevelacqua (Figures 4 and 5, para [0031] and [0046] to [0051]) teaches inductors arranged between different PCBs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the device of Desclos to include an inductor extending between the daughter PCB and the main PCB, as taught by Bevelacqua, doing so would effectively enhance the antenna bandwidth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sun et al (CN 112103627B) discloses a dual inverted-L antenna printed on a substrate.
Russell et al (US 2020/0280141) discloses a dual inverted-L antenna suitable for wearables.
Duong et al (US 2014/0141731) discloses a dual inverted-L antenna.
Christensen (WO 2012/159110 A2) discloses a dual inverted-L antenna for use in mobile devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845