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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 7-11, 16-17 and 20 in the reply filed on 04/10/26 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 4-6. 12-15 and 18-19 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2007/0296638) in view of Shin et al (US 2013/0063236).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses in Figure 6, an electronic device comprising:
a housing (11, 12) including a first surface facing a first direction and a second surface facing a second direction different from the first direction;
a circuit board (20) disposed within the housing;
a first antenna pattern (340, 342) disposed within the housing and electrically connected to the circuit board (20); and
a second antenna pattern (350) disposed on the first surface of the housing and configured to be electromagnetically coupled (see par. 0025) to the first antenna pattern (340, 342),
wherein the first antenna pattern (340, 342) includes a first portion (340) disposed adjacent to the second surface of the housing and a second portion (342) extending from the first portion (340), and wherein the first portion (340) of the first antenna pattern faces at least a portion of the second antenna pattern (350) with the housing (11) interposed therebetween.
Kim discloses in Figure 2 and par. 0025, the electronic device being a mobile communication terminal. However, Kim is silent on the mobile terminal comprising a sound output module disposed within the housing. However, it is well known in the art a mobile terminal comprising a sound output module to output sound signals to user. One of such examples is the teaching of Shin in Figure 11, a sound output module (152’) disposed within the housing. Therefore, to employ having the sound output module as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Kim discloses in Figure 6, further comprising:
a first connection member (22) electrically connecting the second portion (342) of the first antenna pattern and the circuit board (20).
Regarding claims 7-8, as applied to claim 1, Kim discloses in Figure 6,
wherein the first portion (340) of the first antenna pattern is spaced apart from the circuit board (20);
wherein a separation distance between the first portion (340) of the first antenna pattern and the circuit board (20) is greater than a separation distance between the second portion (342) of the first antenna pattern and the circuit board (20).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 16, Kim and shin disclose every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 1, except for the first antenna pattern (340, 340) is an antenna formed on the second surface of the housing (11, 12); and
wherein the second antenna pattern (350) is an antenna formed on the first surface of the housing (11, 12).
Kim does not disclose the first antenna pattern and the second antenna pattern formed by laser directed structuring (LDS).
However, such difference is not patentable merits because the patentability of a product-by-process claim is determined based on the product itself, not on the process of making it. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16, Kim discloses in Figure 6,
wherein the at least portion of the first antenna structure (340, 342) is formed as a conductive portion (antenna 340 capacitively coupled to conductive layer 350, thus 340 made of conductive material).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses in Figure 5, an electronic device comprising:
a housing (11, 12) including a first housing (11) including a first surface facing a first direction and a second surface facing a second direction different from the first direction, and a second housing (12) coupled to the first housing (11);
a circuit board (20) disposed within the housing (11, 12);
a first antenna pattern (240, 42) disposed within the housing and electrically connected to the circuit board (20); and
a second antenna pattern (250) disposed on the first surface of the housing (11, 12) and configured to be electromagnetically coupled (see par. 0025) to the first antenna pattern,
wherein at a least portion (240) of the first antenna pattern (240, 42) faces at least a portion of the second antenna pattern (250) with the housing (11) interposed therebetween.
Kim discloses in Figure 2 and par. 0025, the electronic device being a mobile communication terminal. However, Kim is silent on the mobile terminal comprising a sound output module disposed within the housing. However, it is well known in the art a mobile terminal comprising a sound output module to output sound signals to user. One of such examples is the teaching of Shin in Figure 11, a sound output module (152’) disposed within the housing. Therefore, to employ having the sound output module as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2007/0296638) in view of Shin et al (US 2013/0063236) and further in view of Jung (US 2015/0042528).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 2, except for the first connection member (22) including at least one of a c-clip, a conductive wire, or a pogo pin.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. Electrical connection member such as one of a c-clip, a conductive wire, or a pogo pin is well known in the art of antenna. One of such examples is the teaching of Jung in Figure 6A and par. 0035, the first connection member including at least one of a c-clip (40), a conductive wire, or a pogo pin. Therefore, to employ having the connection member as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2007/0296638) in view of Shin et al (US 2013/0063236) and further in view of Hollemans et al (US 2008/0260176).
Regarding claim 9, Kim and Shin disclose every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 1, except for the at least portion of the second antenna pattern forms a touch area configured to detect a touch input from a user.
Hollemans discloses in Figure 2 and par. 0013, the at least portion of the second antenna pattern (122) forms a touch area (122) configured to detect a touch input from a user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to employ the teaching of Hollemans in the second antenna pattern of Kim form a touch area to detect a touch input from user to reduce external component and to achieve a compact device with cost effective based on particular application or environment of use. Therefore, to employ having the second antenna pattern as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 CRUZ 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.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights