DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Schlub does not disclose that the isolating layer is a part of the housing” on page 10 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 102 and similarly on pages 11-12 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC § 103. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the claim language “the isolating layer is a part of the housing” of amended claim 1 is broad, the isolating layer (206 Figs. 8-10) of Schlub et al. is deemed as a part of the housing (12) by virtue of being an element disposed inside of the housing as seen in Fig. 5 as being part of antenna structure (200 Figs. 5, 8-10). The claim language does not require the housing itself to be the isolating layer between the first conductor and the second conductor as shown in Fig. 7 and Par. 0072-0074 of the specification. Thus, the rejection is maintained. In order to overcome the current rejection, the Examiner suggests further amending claim 1 to clearly highlight this distinguishing feature consistent with the original disclosure. Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 12 & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlub et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0214412.
Regarding Claim 1, Schlub et al. teaches an antenna feeding structure (Figs. 5-10), comprising:
a first conductor (200L Figs. 8-10 Par. 0067), electrically coupled to a part of an antenna (antenna Par. 0067, 80 Fig. 8 Par. 0070), wherein the part of the antenna is located at a housing (12 Figs. 5, 8 Par. 0052, 0072) of an electronic device (10 Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0034);
a second conductor (200U Figs. 8-10 Par. 0067), electrically coupled to radio-frequency (RF) circuitry (204 Figs. 8-10 Par. 0067) on a circuit board (circuit board Par. 0030, 0046, 0065), wherein the second conductor is located on a part of the circuit board (Par. 0065), and the part of the circuit board is enclosed in the housing (“printed circuit board with antenna structures in device 10” Par. 0046); and
an isolating layer (206 Figs. 8-10 Par. 0067), located between the first conductor and the second conductor, wherein the first conductor is isolated from the second conductor via the isolating layer (Figs. 8-10 Par. 0067),
wherein:
at least a part of the isolating layer is made of a dielectric material (206 Par. 0067),
the first conductor is exposed at an outer surface of the housing or embedded in the housing (Figs. 5, 8), and
the isolating layer is a part of the housing (206 is a part of the housing 12 by virtue of being an element inside of the housing as seen in Fig. 5), and the part of the circuit board is separated from the housing by at least the second conductor (Par. 0029, 0066 Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Schlub et al. teaches wherein: each of the first conductor and the second conductor is a sheet (Figs. 8-10), the first conductor is conformed to at least a part of the second conductor (Figs. 8-10), or the second conductor is conformed to at least a part of the first conductor (Figs. 8-10).
Regarding Claim 12, Schlub et al. teaches wherein the antenna feeding structure serves as a capacitor in a matching circuit of the antenna (implied from capacitor C2 Fig. 8 Par. 0046, 0068).
Regarding Claim 15, Schlub et al. teaches wherein the antenna feeding structure serves as a direct-current filter between the antenna and the RF circuitry (Par. 0068).
Regarding Claim 16, Schlub et al. teaches wherein the first conductor is fixedly connected to the housing (implied as seen in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Schlub et al. teaches an electronic device (10 Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0034), comprising: the housing (12 Figs. 5, 8 Par. 0052, 0072), the antenna (antenna Par. 0067) located at the housing, the circuit board (circuit board Par. 0030, 0046, 0065), and the antenna feeding structure according to claim 1 (Figs. 5-10 as shown in the rejection above).
Regarding Claim 18, Schlub et al. teaches wherein no component physically connecting the antenna and the circuit board is under compressive stress (no compressive stress implied as they are inside the metal housing).
Regarding Claim 19, Schlub et al. teaches wherein the part of the antenna is a conducting pattern disposed at a surface of the housing (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Schlub et al. teaches further comprising an insulating layer located between the first conductor and the part of antenna, wherein the first conductor is electrically coupled to the part of the antenna via a conductor running through the insulating layer (L1 through gap between 200L and 80 Fig. 8 Par. 0070).
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.
Claims 3-8, 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlub et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0214412.
Regarding Claim 3, Schlub et al. teaches the antenna feeding structure according to claim 2 as shown in the rejection above.
Schlub et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first conductor comprises a plurality of first sub-conductors which are separated from each other.
However, Schlub et al. teaches “Different types of antennas may be used for different bands and combinations of bands” Par. 0045; “To minimize space within device 10, one or more of antennas 26 may be implemented using conductive structures” Par. 0048.
In this particular case, providing additional elements for a plurality of first sub-conductors and corresponding elements is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Schlub et al. to provide wireless communications in multiple frequency bands (Par. 0045-0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the first conductor to comprise a plurality of first sub-conductors which are separated from each other based on the teachings of Schlub et al. as a result effect in order to provide wireless communications in multiple frequency bands.
Regarding Claim 4, Schlub et al. as modified teaches wherein: a first sub-conductor of the plurality of first sub-conductors is electrically coupled to the part of the antenna; another first sub-conductor of the plurality of first sub-conductors is electrically coupled to a part of another antenna; and the part of the another antenna is located at the housing (implied with a plurality of first sub-conductors and corresponding elements as modified above).
Regarding Claim 5, Schlub et al. as modified teaches further comprising: first switching circuitry, configured to select one of the plurality of the first sub-conductors to connect the part of the antenna (through switching circuits Par. 0030, 0046 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 6, Schlub et al. as modified teaches wherein the second conductor comprises a plurality of second sub-conductors which are separated from each other (implied with a plurality of second sub-conductors and corresponding elements as modified above to provide wireless communications in multiple frequency bands).
Regarding Claim 7, Schlub et al. as modified teaches wherein: a second sub-conductor of the plurality of second sub-conductors is electrically coupled to the RF circuitry; and another second sub-conductor of the plurality of second sub-conductors is electrically coupled to another RF circuitry on the circuit board (implied with a plurality of second sub-conductors and corresponding elements as modified above).
Regarding Claim 8, Schlub et al. as modified teaches further comprising: second switching circuitry, configured to select one of the plurality of the second sub-conductors to connect the RF circuitry (through switching circuits Par. 0030, 0046 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 13, Schlub et al. teaches the antenna feeding structure according to claim 12 as shown in the rejection above.
Schlub et al. does not explicitly teach wherein: the isolating layer has a first thickness in a case that the antenna transmits or receives wireless signals of a first frequency; the isolating layer has a second thickness in a case that the antenna transmits or receives wireless signals of a second frequency; and the first thickness is not equal to the second thickness, and the first frequency is different from the second frequency.
However, Schlub et al. teaches “the thickness of structures 200 may be less than 1 mm, less than 0.5 mm, less than 0.2 mm, less than 0.1 mm, or any other suitable thickness” Par. 0065; and, operating in different frequency bands (Par. 0044, 0045).
In this particular case, configuring antenna dimensions is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Schlub et al. to operate in the corresponding frequency bands.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the thickness of the isolating layer based on the teachings of Schlub et al. as a result effect in order to operate in the corresponding frequency bands for each thickness.
Regarding Claim 14, Schlub et al. teaches the antenna feeding structure according to claim 12 as shown in the rejection above.
Schlub et al. does not explicitly teach wherein: an overlapping region between the first conductor and the second conductor, along a thickness direction of the isolating layer, has a first area in a case that the antenna transmits or receives wireless signals of a first frequency; the overlapping region has a second area in a case that the antenna transmits or receives wireless signals of a second frequency; wherein the first area is not equal to the second area, and the first frequency is different from the second frequency.
However, Schlub et al. teaches “the thickness of structures 200 may be less than 1 mm, less than 0.5 mm, less than 0.2 mm, less than 0.1 mm, or any other suitable thickness” Par. 0065; and, operating in different frequency bands (Par. 0044, 0045).
In this particular case, configuring antenna dimensions is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Schlub et al. to operate in the corresponding frequency bands.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the thickness of an overlapping region between the first conductor and the second conductor, along a thickness direction of the isolating layer based on the teachings of Schlub et al. as a result effect in order to operate in the corresponding frequency bands for each area.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights