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.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (GB 2 438 751 A) [Lee] in view of Askew et al. (6,091,165) [Askew].
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an antenna module comprising a ground plane, the ground plane to couple to a ground foil of an electronic device and an antenna coupled to the ground plane (0025).
Lee fails to disclose the antenna module includes a noise cancelling circuit disposed within a cutout of the ground plane.
In an analogous art, Askew teaches including a noise cancelling circuit within a ground plane to eliminate noise that could introduce through said ground plane (col. 5 lines 25-64).
It would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna module of Lee to include a noise cancelling circuit disposed within a cutout of the ground plane, as suggested by Askew, for the benefit of eliminating noise that could introduce through said ground plane.
Regarding claim 6 and 7 Lee and Askew disclose the antenna module of claim 1, but fail to disclose the antenna module with disposed with a display device comprising a chassis having a plastic portion and a metal portion, the chassis including an internal side and an external side.
Examiner takes official notice that coupling antenna modules display devices having a chassis comprising a plastic portion and a metal portion and the chassis including an internal side and an external side, was notoriously well known in the art at the time of effective filing, serving the conventional benefit of an unobtrusive means for receiving signals wirelessly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
Claims 2-5 and 8-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the inclusion of noise cancelling circuits coupled with antenna in electronic devices is well known, the allowable claimed subject matter is drawn to an integrated noise cancellation circuit that is both disposed within a cutout of the ground place and includes the resonating elements which limit the frequencies on which the antenna operates. This serves to reduce the space needed for operating components within the device (see originally filed specification paragraph 0009) and does not appear to be taught or reasonably suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC D SALTARELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7302. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-1915. 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.
/DOMINIC D SALTARELLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421