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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification in Para 0005, Lines 5-6 recite “the-IR transparent window and the metal radiator” instead of “the IR-transparent window and the metal radiator”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Para. 0005, Lines 4-5 recites “…the-IR transparent window …” instead of “…the IR-transparent window…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites “the-IR transparent window and the metal radiator”, instead of “the IR-transparent window and the metal radiator”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casagrande et al. (US 20050054321).
Casagrande et al. disclose;
Regarding claim 1:
(in Figs. 2-5) an electronic device (21), comprising: a display assembly (defined by 24, 30 and 31) including a transparent cover (24) defining an external surface (See Figs.); a rear cover (25) opposite the transparent cover (24), the rear cover (25) comprising a metal radiator (defined by 25 and 38; Para. 0032, Lines 2-5; Para. 0035, Lines 2-3) defining the external surface (See Figs.); a metal housing sidewall (22) extending between the display assembly (defined by 24, 30 and 31) and the rear cover (25), the [metal] housing sidewall (22) defining the external surface (See Figs.); a non-conductive split (43) disposed between the metal housing sidewall (22) and the metal radiator (defined by 25 and 38), the non-conductive split (43) defining the external surface (See Figs.) and electrically isolating the metal radiator (defined by 25 and 38) from the metal housing sidewall (22; Para. 0024, Lines 6-9); and an antenna assembly (defined by 38, 45, 25, 27 and 42) including the metal radiator (defined by 25 and 38) configured to radiate relative to the metal housing sidewall (22).
Regarding claim 5:
the non-conductive split (43) comprises a plastic (Para. 0024, Lines 10-11); and the non-conductive split (43) defines at least a portion of the external surface (See Figs.).
Regarding claim 11:
(in Figs. 2-5) an electronic device (21), comprising: a front cover (24); a rear cover (25) disposed opposite the front cover (21), the rear cover (25) comprising metal (Para. 0035, Lines 1-3); a metal sidewall (22) extending between the front cover (24) and the rear cover (25); and a plastic split (43) disposed between the metal sidewall (22) and rear cover (25; Para. 0024, Lines 6-9), the plastic split (43) coupling the rear cover (25) and the metal sidewall (22).
Regarding claim 12:
the plastic split (43) electrically isolates the rear cover (25) from the metal sidewall (22; Para. 0024, Lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 13:
the electronic device (21) is a wearable electronic device (See Figs.); and the metal sidewall (22) defines a band slot (defined by 35) configured to receive a securement band (33, 34).
Regarding claim 16:
(in Figs. 2-5) an electronic device (21), comprising: a front cover (24); a rear cover (25) disposed opposite the front cover (24), the rear cover (25) comprising a metal defining an external surface and an internal surface (See Figs.; Para. 0035, Lines 1-3); a metal sidewall (22) extending between the front cover (24) and the rear cover (25); a non-conductive split (43) disposed between the metal sidewall (22) and rear cover (25), the non-conductive split (43) electrically isolating the rear cover (25) from the metal sidewall (22; Para. 0024, Lines 6-9); an antenna feed point (42) coupled to the internal surface (See Fig. 3); and an antenna ground (disposed on 26) coupled (through 41) to the internal surface (of 22; See Figs.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casagrande et al. (US 20050054321) in view of Chiang et al. (US 20230232151).
Regarding claims 2 and 3:
Casagrande et al. are silent on that the rear cover further comprises an infrared (IR)-transparent window defining at least a portion of the external surface as required by claim 2; and the IR-transparent window comprises a ceramic material.
Chiang et al. disclose the rear cover (114) further comprises an infrared (IR)-transparent window (116) defining at least a portion of the external surface (See Figs. 1A and 1B); the IR-transparent window (116) comprises a ceramic material (Para. 0093, Lines 4-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the rear cover further comprises an infrared (IR)-transparent window defining at least a portion of the external surface and the IR-transparent window comprises a ceramic material as taught by Liang et al. into the device of Casagrande et al. for the benefit of portions that are transparent to any desired wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, such as visible light, infrared light, radio waves, or combinations thereof (Para. 0093, Lines 8-10) in order to sense or otherwise detect information regarding the environment exterior to the internal volume of the device (Para. 0246, Lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 6:
Casagrande et al. are silent the non-conductive split further comprises an epoxy portion hidden from view.
Chiang et al. disclose (in Figs. 5A and 5B) the non-conductive split (338) further comprises an epoxy portion hidden from view (See Figs.; Para. 0106, Lines 5-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the non-conductive split further comprises an epoxy portion hidden from view as taught by Chiang et al. into the device of Casagrande et al. for the benefit of achieving aesthetic purposes (Para. 0096, Lines 3-12).
Claims 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casagrande et al. (US 20050054321) in view of Jeonghwan et al. (KR102751068B1).
Regarding claims 4 and 9:
Casagrande et al. are silent the non-conductive split is disposed between the-IR transparent window and the metal radiator as required by claim 4; and the rear cover further comprises an infrared (IR)-transparent window defining the external surface; the non-conductive split comprises: a first plastic portion defining the external surface between the metal radiator and the metal housing sidewall; a second plastic portion defining the external surface between the IR-transparent window and the metal radiator; and an epoxy portion coupled to the first plastic portion and the second plastic portion.
Jeonghwan et al. disclose the non-conductive split (defined by 730) is disposed between the-IR transparent window (for 760) and the metal radiator (242); (in Fig. 7) the rear cover (242) further comprises an infrared (IR)-transparent window (along 730) defining the external surface (of 210); the non-conductive split (defined by 730 and the gaps between 242 and 243) comprises: a first plastic portion (the gaps between 242 and 243) defining the external surface between the metal radiator (defined by 242) and the metal housing sidewall (defined by 243); a second plastic portion (730) defining the external surface between the IR-transparent window (for 760) and the metal radiator (defined by 242); and an epoxy portion (defined as polymer) coupled to the first plastic portion (the gaps between 242 and 243; Para. 0056) and the second plastic portion (730).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the non-conductive split is disposed between the-IR transparent window and the metal radiator; and the rear cover further comprises an infrared (IR)-transparent window defining the external surface; the non-conductive split comprises: a first plastic portion defining the external surface between the metal radiator and the metal housing sidewall; a second plastic portion defining the external surface between the IR-transparent window and the metal radiator; and an epoxy portion coupled to the first plastic portion and the second plastic portion as taught by Jeonghwan et al. into the device of Casagrande et al. for the benefit of providing electrical isolation within part of the device that could deteriorate antenna radiation performance (Para. 0069-0070).
Regarding claim 10:
Casagrande as modified are silent on that the epoxy portion is bonded to an internal surface of the metal radiator opposite the external surface.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to implement the epoxy portion to an internal surface of the metal radiator opposite the external surface along the gaps in the device of modified Casagrande for the benefit of providing aesthetic appeal to the device as well-known in the art, and especially since such design consideration would have been knowledge within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, thereby suggesting the obviousness of the design consideration.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casagrande et al. (US 20050054321) in view of Chiang et al. (US 20230232151) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (US 20210091590).
Regarding claims 7 and 8:
Casagrande et al. disclose the rear cover (25) and the metal housing sidewall (22) define an internal volume (accommodating 26-29) as required by claim 7; and the rear cover (25) and the metal housing sidewall (22) define an internal volume (accommodating 26-29); and the electronic device (21) further comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (26) disposed in the internal volume (See Figs.).
Casagrande as modified are silent on that the electronic device further comprises a charging coil disposed in the internal volume; and the epoxy portion is disposed between the metal radiator and the charging coil as required by claim 7; and the epoxy portion is disposed between the metal radiator and the PCB as required by claim 8.
Liang et al. disclose (in Figs. 6, 7, 13A-13D and 14A-14C) the electronic device (300) further comprises a charging coil (840) disposed in the internal volume (See Fig. 7); and the epoxy portion (837) is disposed between the metal radiator (defined by 830) and the charging coil (840) as required by claim 7; and the epoxy portion (837) is disposed between the metal radiator (830) and the PCB as required by claim 8 (Para. 0049, Lines 11-12; Para. 0070, Lines 14-17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to implement the electronic device further comprises a charging coil disposed in the internal volume; the epoxy portion is disposed between the metal radiator and the charging coil; and the epoxy portion is disposed between the metal radiator and the PCB as taught by Liang et al. into the modified device of Casagrande for the benefit of providing mechanical strength in the housing (Para. 0068, Lines 18-23).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casagrande et al. (US 20050054321) in view of Nath et al. (US 20210033714).
Regarding claims 14 and 15:
Casagrande et al. are silent on that a radio-frequency (RF) window defining the band slot, the RF window configured to allow RF signals to cross the metal sidewall; an antenna feed point coupled to an internal surface of the rear cover; and a conductive cord electrically coupled to the antenna feed point and extending to the RF window as required by claim 14; and further comprising a resonator disposed within the electronic device and adjacent to the RF window, the conductive cord electrically coupled to the resonator as required by claim 15.
Nath et al. disclose (in Figs. 1, 3, 10 and 11) a radio-frequency (RF) window (202) defining the band slot (for 15), the RF window (202) configured to allow RF signals to cross the metal sidewall (12W); an antenna feed point (96, 98) coupled to an internal surface of the rear cover (12R); and a conductive cord (92, 94) electrically coupled to the antenna feed point (96, 98) and extending to the RF window (202); further comprising a resonator (104) disposed within the electronic device (10) and adjacent to the RF window (202), the conductive cord (92, 94) electrically coupled to the resonator (104).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a radio-frequency (RF) window defining the band slot, the RF window configured to allow RF signals to cross the metal sidewall; an antenna feed point coupled to an internal surface of the rear cover; and a conductive cord electrically coupled to the antenna feed point and extending to the RF window; and further comprising a resonator disposed within the electronic device and adjacent to the RF window, the conductive cord electrically coupled to the resonator as taught by Nath et al. into the device of Casagrande et al. for the benefit of facilitating wireless communications circuitry for handling satellite navigation system signals, cellular telephone signals, local wireless area network signals, near-field communications, light-based wireless communications (Para. 0023, Lines 11-15).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casagrande et al. (US 20050054321) in view of Rothkopf et al. (US 20220413446).
Regarding claim 17:
Casagrande et al. are silent on that the antenna feed point comprises a metal interposer welded to the internal surface.
Rothkopf et al. disclose (in Fig. 21B) the antenna feed point (defined by 2142 and 2150) comprises a metal interposer (2150) welded to the internal surface (inside 601).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to implement the antenna feed point comprises a metal interposer welded to the internal surface as taught by Rothkopf et al. into the device of Casagrande et al. for the benefit of allowing electrical interconnections that permit the two devices to transmit signals to one another and thereby interact with one another (Para. 0014, Lines 9-11).
Regarding claims 18-20:
Casagrande as modified are silent on that the metal interposer comprises stamped metal as required by claim 18; the metal interposer comprises stainless steel as required by claim 19; and the metal interposer comprises gold plating as required by claim 20.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to implement materials in this case stamped metal, stainless steel and gold plating recognizing their use and their excellent conductive properties with reduce surface wave losses especially since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights