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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the second radiator and its arrangement. Claims 14-15 only claims the first radiator and the third radiator. The second radiator, claimed in claim 10 and described as element 65 in the specification, is provided in between these two radiators and is coupled to both through the gap. The third radiator cannot be coupled to the first antenna without the second radiator being there. Furthermore, figures 25-26, which are the only ones that show the third radiator, include the second radiator as well. Therefore, the second radiator and its arrangement also needs to be claimed.
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, 6, 8, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0292602, hereby referred as Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches the following:
a terminal antenna, wherein the terminal antenna is arranged in an electronic device (paragraphs [0001] and [0070]), the terminal antenna comprises a first radiator (as shown in figure 1), the first radiator is provided with a first feed (element 10, figure 1) and a first ground point (element 11, figure 1), and the first ground point is arranged at an end of the first radiator; and
the first ground point is connected to the first radiator through a first inductor (element 5, figure 1), and a value of the first inductor is comprised within a range of [5 nH, 47 nH] (paragraph [0084]);
a length of a first part is greater than 1/8 of a wavelength of an operating frequency band and less than 1/4 of the wavelength of the operating frequency band, and the operating frequency band is an operating frequency band of the terminal antenna, the first part is a radiator that is on the first radiator and that is between the first feed and the first ground point (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first radiator is arranged in an L-shaped structure at any corner of the electronic device (as shown in figure 2, paragraphs [0001] and [0070]), the L-shaped structure comprises a first arm (element 2, figure 1) and a second arm (element 1, figure 1), and the first arm is perpendicular to the second arm (as shown in figure 1); and
the first feed is arranged on the first arm, and the first ground point is arranged on the second arm (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein when the terminal antenna (figure 1) operates, a uniform electric field is distributed between the first radiator (of figure 1) and a reference ground (of element 100, figure 1); and a current reversal point is distributed on the first part of the first radiator (The claimed and prior art have a substantially identical structure, and therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”; see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki as referred in claim 6 teaches the following:
wherein the first radiator further comprises a second part (element 4, figure 1), the second part is connected to the first part at the first feed, and an end of the second part away from the first feed is suspended (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first feed is configured to feed a low-frequency signal to the first radiator, and a frequency of the low-frequency signal is comprised within a range of [500 MHz, 960 MHz] (paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
An electronic device (as shown in figure 2, paragraphs [0001] and [0070]), wherein the electronic device is provided with the terminal antenna according to claim 1 (as explained in claim 1); and when the electronic device transmits or receives a low-frequency signal, the low-frequency signal is transmitted or received through the terminal antenna (paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki as referred in claim 6 teaches the following:
wherein the first radiator further comprises a second part (element 4, figure 1), the second part is connected to the first part at the first feed, and an end of the second part away from the first feed is suspended (as shown in figure 1).
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.
Claim 2 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0292602, hereby referred as Suzuki).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein a second inductor (part of element 9, figure 1, paragraph [0081]) is arranged between the first feed (element 10, figure 1) and the first radiator, one end of the second inductor is connected to the first feed and the first radiator, the other end of the second inductor is grounded (paragraph [0081]); and
the first inductor and/or the second inductor are/is configured to adjust a resonance frequency of the terminal antenna (paragraphs [0081]-[0084]).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach the second inductor is less than 5 nH.
However, it is known in the antenna art that various values could be used for inductors for matching circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second inductor of Suzuki to be less than 5 nH as this is a known design choice that can be used to design the radiator for a certain resonance frequency, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki as referred in claim 2 teaches the following:
wherein the first radiator is arranged in an L-shaped structure at any corner of the electronic device (as shown in figure 2, paragraphs [0001] and [0070]), the L-shaped structure comprises a first arm (element 2, figure 1) and a second arm (element 1, figure 1), and the first arm is perpendicular to the second arm (as shown in figure 1); and
the first feed is arranged on the first arm, and the first ground point is arranged on the second arm (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki as referred in claim 2 teaches the following:
wherein when the terminal antenna (figure 1) operates, a uniform electric field is distributed between the first radiator (of figure 1) and a reference ground (of element 100, figure 1); and a current reversal point is distributed on the first part of the first radiator (The claimed and prior art have a substantially identical structure, and therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”; see MPEP 2112.01).
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2023/0275345, hereby referred as Liang) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0292602, hereby referred as Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches the following:
a terminal antenna (figures 2-6), wherein the terminal antenna is arranged in an electronic device (figure 1), the terminal antenna comprises a first radiator (element 110, figures 2-6), the first radiator is provided with a first feed (element 120, figures 2-6) and a first ground point (connected to element 140, figures 2-6), and the first ground point is arranged at an end of the first radiator (as shown in figures 2-6).
Liang does not explicitly teach the first ground point is connected to the first radiator through a first inductor, and a value of the first inductor is comprised within a range of [5 nH, 47 nH];
a length of a first part is greater than 1/8 of a wavelength of an operating frequency band and less than 1/4 of the wavelength of the operating frequency band, and the operating frequency band is an operating frequency band of the terminal antenna, the first part is a radiator that is on the first radiator and that is between the first feed and the first ground point.
However, Liang does teach a matching network connected to the ground point, and it is well known in the antenna art that matching networks can comprises of inductors of various values to adjust a resonance frequency of the terminal antenna.
Suzuki teaches the first ground point is connected to the first radiator through a first inductor (element 5, figure 1), and a value of the first inductor is comprised within a range of [5 nH, 47 nH] (paragraph [0084]);
a length of a first part is greater than 1/8 of a wavelength of an operating frequency band and less than 1/4 of the wavelength of the operating frequency band, and the operating frequency band is an operating frequency band of the terminal antenna, the first part is a radiator that is on the first radiator and that is between the first feed and the first ground point (paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first ground point of Liang to be connected to the first radiator through a first inductor, and a value of the first inductor is comprised within a range of [5 nH, 47 nH]; and for a length of a first part is greater than 1/8 of a wavelength of an operating frequency band and less than 1/4 of the wavelength of the operating frequency band, and the operating frequency band is an operating frequency band of the terminal antenna, the first part is a radiator that is on the first radiator and that is between the first feed and the first ground point as suggested by the teachings of Liang and Suzuki as both of these changes are known design techniques to adjust the resonance frequency of the terminal antenna, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liang and Suzuki as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein a second inductor (Liang, element 206, figure 6)(Suzuki, part of element 9, figure 1, paragraph [0081]) is arranged between the first feed (Liang, element 120, figure 6) (Suzuki, element 10, figure 1) and the first radiator (Liang, element 110, figure 6), one end of the second inductor is connected to the first feed and the first radiator, the other end of the second inductor is grounded (Liang, as shown in figure 6) (Suzuki, paragraph [0081]); and
the first inductor and/or the second inductor are/is configured to adjust a resonance frequency of the terminal antenna (Liang, paragraphs [0086]-[0088]) (Suzuki, paragraphs [0081]-[0084]).
The combination of Liang and Suzuki does not explicitly teach the second inductor is less than 5 nH.
However, it is known in the antenna art that various values could be used for inductors for matching circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second inductor of the combination of Liang and Suzuki to be less than 5 nH as this is a known design choice that can be used to design the radiator for a certain resonance frequency, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Liang as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first radiator is arranged in an L-shaped structure at any corner of the electronic device (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6), the L-shaped structure comprises a first arm (Liang, portion that element 120 is connected to, figures 2-6) and a second arm (Liang, portion that element 130 is connected to, figures 2-6), and the first arm is perpendicular to the second arm (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6); and
the first feed is arranged on the first arm (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6), and the first ground point is arranged on the second arm (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 4, Liang as modified in claim 3 teaches the following:
wherein a straight line on which the first arm is located is parallel to a long edge of the electronic device (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 5, Liang as modified in claim 4 teaches the terminal antenna with the exception for the following:
wherein a distance from the first feed to the second arm is comprised within a range of [0 mm, 30 mm].
However, adjusting the lengths of the arms of a radiator is known in the art to adjust the resonant frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a distance from the first feed to the second arm of Liang as modified to be comprised within a range of [0 mm, 30 mm] in order to adjust the resonant frequency as desired, and since in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, Liang as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein when the terminal antenna operates, a uniform electric field is distributed between the first radiator (element 110, figures 2-6) and a reference ground (of element 40, figure 5); and a current reversal point is distributed on the first part of the first radiator (The claimed and prior art have a substantially identical structure, and therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”; see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 8, Liang as modified in claim 6 teaches the following:
wherein the first radiator (Liang, element 110, figures 2-6) further comprises a second part (Liang, the portion from 111 to 114, figures 2-6), the second part is connected to the first part at the first feed (Liang, element 120, figures 2-6), and an end of the second part away from the first feed is suspended (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 10, Liang as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the terminal antenna further comprises a second radiator (element 210, figures 5-6), the second radiator is not connected to the first radiator, and an end of the second radiator is arranged opposite to the end of the first radiator at which the first ground point is arranged (as shown in figures 5-6); and
the second radiator is provided with a second ground point, the second ground point is arranged at an end of the second radiator close to the first radiator, and the other end of the second radiator is arranged suspended (as shown in figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, Liang as modified in claim 10 teaches the terminal antenna with the exception for the following:
wherein a length of the second radiator is comprised within a range of [13 mm, 20 mm]; and
when the terminal antenna operates, a resonance frequency of a parasitic mode excited on the second radiator is lower than the operating frequency band of the terminal antenna.
However, Liang does teach that the length of the second radiator is reduced to a quarter wavelength of a second resonance (paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the length of the second radiator of Liang as modified to be comprised within a range of [13 mm, 20 mm], and when the terminal antenna operates, a resonance frequency of a parasitic mode excited on the second radiator is lower than the operating frequency band of the terminal antenna, as suggested by the teachings of Liang to operate in the desired additional resonant frequency band, and since in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, Liang as modified in claim 10 teaches the following:
wherein the second radiator (element 210, figures 5-6) is arranged on an outer side of a USB interface of the electronic device (as shown in figure 5), and the second radiator is not connected to a body of the USB interface (as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Liang as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first feed (element 120, figures 2-6) is configured to feed a low-frequency signal to the first radiator (element 110, figures 2-6), and a frequency of the low-frequency signal is comprised within a range of [500 MHz, 960 MHz] (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Liang as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
an electronic device (Liang, figure 1), wherein the electronic device is provided with the terminal antenna according to claim 1 (as explained in claim 1); and when the electronic device transmits or receives a low-frequency signal, the low-frequency signal is transmitted or received through the terminal antenna (Liang, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Liang as modified in claim 2 teaches the following:
wherein the first radiator is arranged in an L-shaped structure at any corner of the electronic device (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6), the L-shaped structure comprises a first arm (Liang, portion that element 120 is connected to, figures 2-6) and a second arm (Liang, portion that element 130 is connected to, figures 2-6), and the first arm is perpendicular to the second arm (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6); and
the first feed is arranged on the first arm (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6), and the first ground point is arranged on the second arm (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 19, Liang as modified in claim 2 teaches the following:
wherein when the terminal antenna operates, a uniform electric field is distributed between the first radiator (element 110, figures 2-6) and a reference ground (of element 40, figure 5); and a current reversal point is distributed on the first part of the first radiator (The claimed and prior art have a substantially identical structure, and therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”; see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 20, Liang as modified in claim 6 teaches the following:
wherein the first radiator (Liang, element 110, figures 2-6) further comprises a second part (Liang, the portion from 111 to 114, figures 2-6), the second part is connected to the first part at the first feed (Liang, element 120, figures 2-6), and an end of the second part away from the first feed is suspended (Liang, as shown in figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 21, Liang as modified in claim 9 teaches the following:
wherein the terminal antenna further comprises a second radiator (element 210, figures 5-6), the second radiator is not connected to the first radiator, and an end of the second radiator is arranged opposite to the end of the first radiator at which the first ground point is arranged (as shown in figures 5-6); and
the second radiator is provided with a second ground point, the second ground point is arranged at an end of the second radiator close to the first radiator, and the other end of the second radiator is arranged suspended (as shown in figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 22, Liang as modified in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein the second radiator (element 210, figures 5-6) is arranged on an outer side of a USB interface of the electronic device (as shown in figure 5), and the second radiator is not connected to a body of the USB interface (as shown in figure 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claims 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights