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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s)-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA et al (US 2017/0271735 A1) in view of Ko (US 2022/0192017) and Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218).
Regarding Claim-21, KAGAYA et al. discloses that the PCB consist of a first signal layer comprising a first signal plate (Fig. 3, Item-104), the first signal plate, a first ground layer comprising a first ground plate, the first ground plate (Fig. 3, Item-105), being positioned below the first signal plate and having a first area; a second signal layer comprising a second signal plate positioned below the first ground plate (Fig. 3, Item-114), a first dielectric positioned between the first ground plate and the second signal plate (Fig.3, Item-109B), the first dielectric having a first thickness and a first permittivity; a second ground layer comprising a second ground plate, the second ground plate is positioned below the second signal plate and having a second area corresponding to a second parameter of the target frequency band (Fig.-3, Item-115); and a second dielectric positioned between the second signal plate and the second ground plate, the second dielectric (Fig.-3, Item-109C) having a second thickness and a second permittivity corresponding to the second parameter (as shown by different thickness in Fig.-3).
Regarding the first permittivity and second permittivity- of the dielectric layers, we are interpreting this limitation as being capable of having the same permittivity. Since both layers used the same materials, they would have the same permittivity.
KAGAYA et al. does not discloses that the two components, and the first signal plate having a length pattern with a length corresponding to a first parameter of a target frequency band.
Regarding the two components Ko (US 2022/0192017) discloses first and second electric component of an electronic device that includes the first electronic component (Fig. 6, Item-45); and a second electronic component (Fig. 6, Item-15). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to add two electronic components as shown by Ko to the circuit board of KAGAYA et al., since two electronic components are commonly used with the circuit board to increase functionality.
Regarding the first signal plate, Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218)- discloses the first signal plate having a length pattern with a length corresponding to a first parameter of a target frequency band at Paraghaph-11, stating this would remove undesired signal noise from the transmission signal line (layers) in this Printed circuit board (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to add the first signal plate having a length pattern with a length corresponding to a first parameter of a target frequency band as shown by Takahashi with the circuit board of Ko, since it is commonly done to make the first signal plate having a length pattern with a length corresponding to a first parameter of a target frequency band, because this would remove undesired signal noise from the transmission signal line (layers) in this Printed circuit board.
Regarding Claim-29, KAGAYA et al- discloses that the first thickness is less than the second thickness (Fig.-3, Item 109A & 109B).
Claim(s) 22-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA et al (US 2017/0271735 A1) in view of Ko (US 2022/0192017) and Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218) as detailed Claim-21 above, and further in view of Kamei (US 2010/ 0155113 A1).
Regarding Claim-22 and Claim-23, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose- the length pattern includes a first extension extending in a first direction of the first signal plate; and a second extension extending from the first extension, wherein the first extension has a first length, the second extension has a second length, and the first length is equal to or greater than the second length. However, Kamei (US 2010/ 0155113 A1) discloses- the length pattern includes a first extension extending in a first direction of the first signal plate; and a second extension extending from the first extension, wherein the first extension has a first length, the second extension has a second length, and the first length is equal to or greater than the second length (Fig-2, Item-10, 15, 16, 17)- as shown in modified Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these inventions as disclosed in this reference art for better functional performance of this PCB/ device.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim-24, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose wherein the length pattern further comprises an additional first extension that extends from the second extension in a direction substantially opposite to the first direction and that is spaced apart from the first extension. However, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the length pattern further having an additional first extension that extends from the second extension in a direction substantially opposite to the first direction and that is spaced apart from the first extension since change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim -27, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose the length pattern has a central portion, and the length pattern comprises an extension that extends in a direction to enclose the central portion at a periphery of the central portion. However, Kamei (US 2010/ 0155113 A1) discloses- the length pattern has a central portion, and the length pattern comprises an extension that extends in a direction to enclose the central portion at a periphery of the central portion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these inventions as disclosed in this reference art for better functional performance of this PCB/ device.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA et al (US 2017/0271735 A1) in view of Ko (US 2022/0192017) and Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218) as detailed in Claim-21, and further in view of CHO et al. (US 20200358166 A1).
Regarding Claim-28, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose- first signal plate with a first connector section connected to the first electronic component (communications Module); and a second connector section connected to the second electronic component (Antenna Module). However, CHO et al.- discloses that – first signal plate with a first connector section connected to the first electronic component (communications Module); a second connector section connected to the second electronic component (Antenna Module). Claim-26, and as shown in Fig. 10 the second antenna (232) is separated from the communications module (Fig. 15, 1920). These two modules are connected through a bus inherently by a first and second connector section. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include the first signal plate with a first connector section connected to the first electronic component (communications module); a second connector section connected to the second electronic component (Antenna Module) for better PCB performance.
Claim(s)-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA et al (US 2017/0271735 A1) in view of Ko (US 2022/0192017) and Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218) asd detailed in claim rejection 21 above, and further in view of Ikeda (US 11990480 B2).
Regarding Claim-30, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose- the second dielectric permittivity is greater than the first dielectric permittivity. However, Ikeda (US 11990480 B2) discloses that the second dielectric permittivity is greater than the first dielectric permittivity (in Claim-1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these inventions as disclosed in this reference art for better functional performance of this device.
Claim(s)-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA et al (US 2017/0271735 A1) in view of Ko (US 2022/0192017) and Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218) asd detailed in claim rejection 21 above, and further in view of Seko; Hiroaki (US 10249670 B2).
Regarding Claim-31, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose- the first ground layer further comprises a slot pattern formed in the first ground plate, and the slot pattern comprises a plurality of slots that extend in a first direction of the first ground plate and that are arranged in a second direction different from the first direction. However, Seko; Hiroaki (US 10249670 B2) discloses that first ground layer further comprises a slot pattern formed in the first ground plate, and the slot pattern comprises a plurality of slots that extend in a first direction of the first ground plate and that are arranged in a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. -10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these inventions as disclosed in this reference art for better functional performance of this device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these inventions as disclosed in this reference art for better device functional performance.
Claim(s)-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA et al (US 2017/0271735 A1) in view of Ko (US 2022/0192017) and Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218) asd detailed in claim rejection 21 above, and further in view of Kaufmann; Thomas (US 20220337277 A1).
Regarding Claim-32, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose- the first electronic component comprises a communication module, and the second electronic component comprises an antenna module. However, Kaufmann; Thomas (US 20220337277 A1)- discloses the first electronic component comprises a communication module, and the second electronic component comprises an antenna module [Paragraph -0024].
Claim-33, 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA et al (US 2017/0271735 A1) in view of Ko (US 2022/0192017) and Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218) as detailed in Claim-21, and further in view of CHO et al. (US 20200358166 A1).
Regarding Clain-33, modified KAGAYA does disclose- Regarding Claim -33, KAGAYA et al. discloses that the PCB consist of a first signal layer comprising a first signal plate (Fig. 3, Item-104), the first signal plate, a first ground layer comprising a first ground plate, the first ground plate (Fig. 3, Item-105), being positioned below the first signal plate and having a first area; a second signal layer comprising a second signal plate positioned below the first ground plate (Fig. 3, Item-114), a first dielectric positioned between the first ground plate and the second signal plate (Fig.3, Item-109B), the first dielectric having a first thickness and a first permittivity; a second ground layer comprising a second ground plate, the second ground plate is positioned below the second signal plate and having a second area corresponding to a second parameter of the target frequency band (Fig.-3, Item-115); and a second dielectric positioned between the second signal plate and the second ground plate, the second dielectric (Fig.-3, Item-109C) having a second thickness and a second permittivity corresponding to the second parameter (as shown by different thickness in Fig.-3).
KAGAYA et al. does not disclose - the first signal plate having a length pattern with a length corresponding to a first parameter of a target frequency band.
Regarding the first signal plate, Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218)- discloses the first signal plate having a length pattern with a length corresponding to a first parameter of a target frequency band at Paraghaph-11, stating this would remove undesired signal noise from the transmission signal line (layers) in this Printed circuit board (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to add the first signal plate having a length pattern with a length corresponding to a first parameter of a target frequency band as shown by Takahashi with the circuit board of KAGAYA et al., since it is commonly done to make the first signal plate having a length pattern with a length corresponding to a first parameter of a target frequency band, because this would remove undesired signal noise from the transmission signal line (layers) in this Printed circuit board.
Regarding Claim-39, modified KAGAYA disclose- the length pattern has a central portion, and the length pattern comprises an extension that extends in a direction to enclose the central portion at a periphery of the central portion (see below in this Modified and annotated Picture-2).
Regarding Claim-40, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose- the first signal plate with a first connector section connected to the first electronic component (communications Module); and a second connector section connected to the second electronic component (Antenna Module). However, CHO et al.- discloses that – first signal plate with a first connector section connected to the first electronic component (communications Module); a second connector section connected to the second electronic component (Antenna Module). Claim-26, and as shown in Fig. 10 the second antenna (232) is separated from the communications module (Fig. 15, 1920). These two modules are connected through a bus inherently by a first and second connector section. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these inventions as disclosed in this reference art for better device functional performance.
Claim-34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA et al (US 2017/0271735 A1) in view of Ko (US 2022/0192017) and Takahashi (US 2012/ 0206218) as detailed in Claim-21, and further in view of Kamei (US 2010/ 0155113 A1).
Regarding Claim-34 and 35, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose- the length pattern includes a first extension extending in a first direction of the first signal plate; and a second extension extending from the first extension, wherein the first extension has a first length, the second extension has a second length, and the first length is equal to or greater than the second length. However, Kamei (US 2010/ 0155113 A1) discloses- the length pattern includes a first extension extending in a first direction of the first signal plate; and a second extension extending from the first extension, wherein the first extension has a first length, the second extension has a second length, and the first length is equal to or greater than the second length (Fig-2, Item-10, 15, 16, 17)- as shown in modified Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these inventions as disclosed in this reference art for better functional performance of this PCB/ device.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim-36, modified KAGAYA doesn’t disclose wherein the length pattern further comprises an additional first extension that extends from the second extension in a direction substantially opposite to the first direction and that is spaced apart from the first extension. However, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the length pattern further having an additional first extension that extends from the second extension in a direction substantially opposite to the first direction and that is spaced apart from the first extension since change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 25, 26, 37, 38- are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OBAIDUL GANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
OBAIDUL GANI
Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights