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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This Office Action is a response to Applicant’s communication (or preliminary’s amendment) filed on 09/25/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently presented in the instant application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents received on 01/24/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by the examiner.
If applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.97 to disclose the same.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 09/25/2024 is accepted as part of the formal application.
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 5-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5,
The recitation “the radio wave” in lines 2-3 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 8,
The recitation “a via” in line 4 is considered vague because it’s confused with “a via” in line 2. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 11, 13-14 and 18-20, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al (US 12327914), hereinafter Yamada.
Regarding claim 1,
Yamada discloses an antenna module (an antenna module 100A, Fig 4) comprising:
a dielectric substrate (a dielectric substrate 130, Fig 4B);
a ground electrode (a ground electrode GND, Fig 4B) disposed in the dielectric substrate;
a first radiating element (a radiating element 122, Fig 4B) disposed to face the ground electrode;
a second radiating element (a radiating element 121, Fig 4B) disposed between the first radiating element and the ground electrode; and
a first peripheral electrode (a peripheral electrode 1501, Fig 4B) disposed in a layer of the dielectric substrate between the ground electrode and the second radiating element and electrically connected to the ground electrode (Fig 4B), wherein
the first radiating element and the second radiating element have a planar shape (Fig 4A),
the first radiating element is configured to emit a first radio wave in a first frequency band (paragraph [0058]),
the second radiating element is configured to emit a second radio wave in a second frequency band that is lower than the first frequency band (paragraph [0058]),
the first peripheral electrode includes multiple planar electrodes (Fig 4B) that are stacked in a first direction (a z-direction, Fig 4B) in which the first radiating element faces the ground electrode,
the multiple planar electrodes include a first electrode (a first electrode 15011, Fig 4B) and a second electrode (a first electrode 15012, Fig 4B) disposed in a layer between the first electrode and the ground electrode (Fig 4B), and
a size of the second electrode is less than a size of the first electrode (Fig 4B).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1502)][AltContent: textbox (15012)][AltContent: textbox (15011)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1501)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Yamada (US 12327914))]
PNG
media_image1.png
638
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Yamada teaches the multiple planar electrodes are strip-shaped electrodes extending in a second direction (an x-direction, Fig 4B), and a length of the second electrode in the second direction is less than a length of the first electrode in the second direction (Fig 4B).
Regarding claim 5,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 3.
Yamada teaches the first radiating element is configured to emit the radio wave (emit a radio wave at a feed point SP2A, Fig 4A) with a polarization direction corresponding to a third direction (a direction in y-direction, Fig 4A) that is orthogonal to the second direction (Fig 4A).
Regarding claim 8,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Yamada teaches the first peripheral electrode further includes a via that connects the multiple planar electrodes to the ground electrode (Fig 4B) and a via that interconnects the multiple planar electrodes (Fig 4B).
Regarding claim 9,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Yamada teaches the multiple planar electrodes include capacitively coupled electrodes (Fig 4B).
Regarding claim 11,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Yamada teaches in plan view from the first direction, the first peripheral electrode does not overlap the first radiating element (Fig 4A).
Regarding claim 13,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 3.
Yamada teaches the first radiating element is configured to further emit a radio wave (emit a radio wave at a feed point SP1A, Fig 4A) with a polarization direction corresponding to the second direction.
Regarding claim 14,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 3.
Yamada teaches a second peripheral electrode (a peripheral electrode 170, Fig 5B) disposed on the second radiating element and extending in the second direction, and the second peripheral electrode is electrically connected to the second radiating element (Fig 5B).
[AltContent: textbox (Yamada (US 12327914))]
PNG
media_image2.png
634
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Yamada teaches the multiple planar electrodes have a same shape (Fig 4A).
Regarding claim 19,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Yamada teaches a feed circuit (an RFIC 110, Fig 4B) configured to supply a radio frequency signal to each of the radiating elements.
Regarding claim 20,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Yamada teaches a communication apparatus (a communication device 10, Fig 1) comprising: the antenna module according to claim 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (US 12327914), hereinafter Yamada.
Regarding claim 10,
Yamada discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 3.
Yamada does not explicitly teach among the multiple planar electrodes, a length of a longest electrode in the second direction is within ±25% of a dimension of the first radiating element in the second direction.
However, Yamada teaches the peripheral electrode increases a capacitance component between the radiating element and the ground electrode (col 2, lines 35-39). This teaching is result effect in order to achieve a desired resonant frequency of the radiating element even when the dimension of the radiating element is shortened (col 2, lines 35-39).
Therefore, 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 among multiple planar electrodes, a length of a longest electrode in a second direction being within ±25% of a dimension of a first radiating element in the second direction in Yamada, in order to improve antenna characteristics of the antenna module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 12 and 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 2, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “a size of the third electrode is less than the size of the second electrode”.
Regarding claim 4, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “lengths of the multiple planar electrodes in the second direction decrease toward the ground electrode”.
Regarding claim 6, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the first peripheral electrode is provided for each of end portions of the first radiating element in the third direction”.
Regarding claim 7, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “a dimension of the dielectric substrate in the third direction is less than a dimension of the dielectric substrate in the second direction”.
Regarding claim 12, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “in plan view from the first direction, at least a part of the first peripheral electrode overlaps the second radiating element”.
Regarding claim 15, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “a fourth radiating element disposed between the third radiating element and the ground electrode and configured to emit a radio wave in the second frequency band; and a third peripheral electrode that is disposed in a layer of the dielectric substrate between the ground electrode and the fourth radiating element and is electrically connected to the ground electrode, wherein the third peripheral electrode includes a fourth electrode and a fifth electrode that are stacked in the first direction and extend in the second direction, the fifth electrode is disposed in a layer between the fourth electrode and the ground electrode, and a length of the fifth electrode in the second direction is less than a length of the fourth electrode in the second direction”.
Dependent claims 16-17 are considered to be allowable because of its/their dependency/dependencies on claim 15.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-7650. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845