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 changes to the specification in paragraphs [0023] and [0024] are considered new matter should revert back to original form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the metal portion is disposed on one of a transducer assembly, a metal frame, a magnet, and an input-output port.” This limitation is considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8 and 10-17 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.
Claim 8 recites: “wherein the metal portion is disposed on one of a transducer assembly, a metal frame, a magnet, and an input-output port.” This limitation renders the scope of the claim indefinite as the meaning of the phrase “disposed on” is uncertain in the context of the specification. The original written description, in paragraph [0023], describes this feature as "the metal portion M1 can be part of a speaker/transducer component or assembly, a metal frame, a magnet, or an input/output port in the electronic device 200, or other metal structures. In other words, the metal portion M1 can be arranged in the speaker component (transducer assembly), metal frame, magnet, or input/output port in the electronic device 200." It appears Applicant is attempting to capture this disclosed arrangement; however, the claim language does not make clear whether the metal portion is “part of” or “arranged in” a speaker/transducer component or assembly, a metal frame, a magnet, or an input/output port. Moreover, it cannot be the case that Applicant intends to use the literal meaning of the term “disposed on” as that interpretation would not make any sense in the context of the written description.
Claim 10 contains the term, “disposed on,” and is rejected for the same reasons, as discussed above for claim 9. It is noted that the last instance of the term “disposed on,” as it appears in the last line of the claim, is not indefinite and may remain in the claim.
For examination purposes, claim 8 is interpreted as:
Claim 8: (Proposed-Currently Amended) An electronic device comprising:
a metal portion; and
an antenna unit comprising:
a feeding source;
a main radiation portion signally connected to the feeding source and spaced apart from the metal portion by a first gap; and
a grounding portion spaced apart from the metal portion by a second gap and connected to a grounding layer;
wherein the main radiation portion couples with the metal portion via the first gap, and the grounding portion couples with the metal portion via the second gap;
;
wherein the metal portion is arranged in a transducer assembly, and the transducer assembly comprises:
a holder; and
a transducer held by the holder and comprising a first side and a second side;
wherein the metal portion is disposed on the second side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0039329).
Chen, in figure 10, discloses:
Claim 18: An antenna structure, comprising:
a feeding source (700);
a main radiation portion (310) signally connected to the feeding source;
a metal portion (330) spaced apart from the main radiation portion by a first gap (gap between 330 and 310); and
a grounding portion (320) spaced apart from the metal portion by a second gap (gap between 320 and 330) and spaced apart from the main radiation portion by a third gap (gap between 320 and 310);
wherein the main radiation portion couples with the metal portion via the first gap, and the grounding portion couples with the metal portion via the second gap (paragraph [0050]; fig. 10);
wherein the grounding portion is connected to a grounding layer (520), and the main radiation portion is not connected to the grounding layer directly (fig. 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7 are allowed.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended as proposed on page 4 of the instant Office action 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 10-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT KARACSONY whose telephone number is (571)270-1268. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 (571) 270-7893. 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.
/Robert Karacsony/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights