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 .
The information disclosure statement filed on 7/25/2024 has been entered. Clams 1-20 are presented for examination.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Karilainen et al. (Karilainen et al. – IEEE article entitled Choosing Dielectric or Magnetic Material to Optimize the Bandwidth of Miniaturized Resonant Antennas; here in after referred to as “Karilainen”- cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Karilainen discloses an apparatus, comprising:
an antenna (Karilainen; patch antenna; pg. 3991, title , abstract, 2nd col., 2nd paragraph); and
a matching circuit comprising at least one electronic circuit element including a dispersive material for tuning the antenna to modify a bandwidth of the antenna, the dispersive material configured to nullify at least a portion of the stored energy of at least one electronic circuit element from a vantage point of an antenna port of the antenna (Karilainen; patch antenna; pg. 3991, title , abstract, 2nd col., 2nd paragraph; a dielectric and magnetic substrate, electronic circuit element including a dispersive material wherein radiation resistance Ra is matched to characteristic impedance Z0 increases the relative bandwidth of the antenna; page 3991, 2nd col., 2nd paragraph; page 3392, 2nd paragraph; page 3993, 2nd paragraph; page 3994, 2nd col., 2nd and last paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Karilainen discloses the apparatus of claim 1,wherein the antenna is an electrically small inductive antenna (Karilainen; the antenna is a small resonant antenna with increase inductance; page 3992, secs II and III).
Regarding claim 4, Karilainen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the antenna is an electrically small capacitive antenna (Karilainen; the antenna is a small resonant antenna with decreased capacitance; page 3992, sec. II and III).
Regarding claim 8, Karilainen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dispersive material is constructed to nullify a source of stored energy at the at least one electronic circuit element around a frequency of the dispersive material (Karilainen; the magnet-dielectrc substrate reduces (constructed to nullify) stored energy at patch spots electronic element, page 3991, 2nd col., 2nd paragraph; page 3992, sect. II, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Karilainen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dispersive material is constructed to nullify a source of Q energy in the apparatus (Karilainen; equation 1 in sec . II; page 3991, 2nd col., 1n paragraph; page 3992, sec II, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Karilainen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic circuit element includes a capacitor (Karilainen; decreasing the capacitance of the antenna, inherently requiring a capacitor; page 3992, sec. II).
Regarding claim 11, Karilainen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic circuit element includes an inductor (Karilainen; increasing the inductance of the antenna, inherently requiring an inductor, page 3992, sec II).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karilainen et al. (Karilainen et al. – IEEE article entitled Choosing Dielectric or Magnetic Material to Optimize the Bandwidth of Miniaturized Resonant Antennas; here in after referred to as “Karilainen” – cited by applicant ).
Regarding claim 2, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of Karilainen. The claims differs in calling for the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the matching circuit includes an impedance transformer for nullifying the at least the portion of stored energy of the at least one electronic circuit element. Karilainen, in a second embodiment teaches an impedance transformer (antenna impedance changes with an impedance transformer; page 3992, 2nd col., 1st paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Karilainen with the impedance transformer of the second embodiment of Karilainen for the purpose of not changing the material loading ( Karilainen, page 3992, col. 1, 1st paragraph).
Claims 5-6, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karilainen et al. (Karilainen et al. – IEEE article entitled Choosing Dielectric or Magnetic Material to Optimize the Bandwidth of Miniaturized Resonant Antennas; here in after referred to as “Karilainen”) in view of Ikonen et al. (Ikonen . Magneto -Dielectric Substrates in Antenna Miniturization: Potential and Limitations – cited by applicant)
Regarding claim 5, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of Karilainen. The claim differs in calling for the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the dispersive material is determined as a sum of Lorentzian functions for realizing an arbitrary frequency dispersion in a matching load of the antenna.
Ikonen is in the field of patch antenna miniaturization (abstract) and teaches wherein the dispersive material is determined as a sum of Lorentzian functions for realizing an arbitrary frequency dispersion in a matching load of the antenna (Karilainen; dispersion characteristics of a substrate material, where the static permeability and resonant frequency can frequently be changed arbitrarily, in a matching criterion to define impedance fit to experimental results to a Lorentzian dispersion model; page 3396, sec A, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Karilainen with the dispersive material determined as sum of Lorentzian functions for realizing an arbitrary frequency dispersion in a matching load of the antenna of Ikonen, for the purposes of determining the effects of magnetic dispersion based on the type of substrate used in a patch antenna (Ikonen; abstract).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 17, see the modified Karilainen discloses the apparatus of claim 5. Karilainen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the arbitrary frequency dispersion is fitted into the sum of
Lorentzian functions of the form including: the equation recited in claim 6, wherein, for each Lorentzian
term in the sum, a corresponding circuit load is implemented by the matching circuit, and wherein each at least one electronic circuit element follows parameters wpn,, won, yn, of the corresponding
Lorentzian function
Ikonen teaches wherein the arbitrary frequency dispersion is fitted into the sum of Lorentzian functions of the form including (page 3394, equation 12 is a Lorentzian type dispersion law applied to the dispersion materials) for each Lorentzian term in the sum, a corresponding circuit load is implemented by the matching circuit (loading the antenna volume with a reference dielectric substrate and using a -6 dB matching criterion to define the impedance bandwidth; page 3396), and wherein each at least one electronic circuit element follows parameters wpn,, won, yn, of the corresponding Lorentzian function (modeling ferromagnetic materials of a circuit using Lorentzian dispersion law with parameters static permeability µs (wpn) resonant frequency wres (wOn), and damping factor ß (yn); fig 1; page 3394, sec III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Karilainen with the Lorentzian function of Ikonen, for the purpose of determining the effects of magnetic dispersion based on a type of substrate used in patch antennas (Ikonen; abstract).
Regarding the Lorentzian equation recited in the claim, Karilainen teaches frequency dispersion, but is silent on the Lorentzian function parameters as recited in the claim. However, Ikonen teaches a relationship between wpn, wOn, and yn. Further, deriving the relationship between wpn, wOn,
and yn as recited in the claim is a matter of mere mathematical manipulation, a known practice in
the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to derive a
mathematical relationship between wpn, wOn, and yn, since where the general conditions
of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine the frequency dispersion of different materials used for tuning an antenna.
Regarding claims 13, the further limitations have been discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 19-20, the further limitations have been discussed in claims 3-4 an d 10-11.
Regarding claim 16, the further limitations have been discussed in claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the further limitations have been discussed in claim 3.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over KARILAINEN et al. (hereinafter, "Karilainen") in view of US 2005/0146402 to Sarabandi et al. (hereinafter, "Sarabandi"; cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 7, see the discussions to claim 1 in view of Karilainen. Karilainen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dispersive material is constructed so that the at least
one electronic circuit element operates as a negative inductor around a resonance frequency at which a
matching operation of the matching circuit occurs.
Sarabandi is in the field of tunable materials (abstract) and teaches wherein the dispersive material is constructed SO that the at least one electronic circuit element operates as a negative inductor around a resonance frequency at which a matching operation of the matching circuit occurs (the dispersive magnetic medium (material) where the identical (matching) resonant circuit inductance becomes negative as the frequency 0 approaches the resonant frequency wp; paras [0046]-[0048], [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing date of the invention to modify Karilainen with the negative inductor of Sarabandi, for the purpose of tuning a band-gap frequency of a resonant circuit constructed with a printed capacitor loaded with ferro-electric material (Sarabandi; abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2396. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-5:00 PM M-Th..
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876