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
Claim 1, 2, 7, and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: excessive spacing between words such as “module” and “disposed” in line 6 of the claim; Claim 2 contains excessive spacing between words such as “portion” and “and” in line 4; Claim 7 contains excessive spacing “FPCB” and “comprises” in line 2; Claim 16 contains excessive spacing between words such as “module” and “disposed” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 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 1 and 16 recite “a bracket disposed in the inside of the housing”. The limitation is indefinite in light of the Specification because it is unclear what is meant by ‘inside the housing’. A skilled artisan would find the limitation confusing in determining whether it means the bracket is inside the housing of the device or the sidewall of the housing based on the disclosure of the invention. For example, in Paragraph 71 of the Specification, it states “the first support member 311 may be disposed inside the electronic device 101”. In Paragraph 79, it is stated “The bottom structure 319 and the side structure 310 may form a space for accommodating electronic components (e.g., the battery 350) inside the electronic device 101”. In Paragraph 92, Applicant states “bracket 420 may be disposed inside the electronic device 101…bracket 420 may be disposed inside the side wall 310 of the electronic device 101”. In Paragraph 200, it is stated “disclosure may include a bracket 420 or 2420 disposed in the inside S2 of the housing 301”. These statements cause genuine confusion as to whether the claim is attempting to claim that the bracket is inside the electronic device and the side walls, e.g., with electronic components, or the bracket is inside the side walls. A skilled artisan would not be apprised of the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation in light of the Specification. For purposes of examination the Examiner interprets the limitation as “a bracket disposed in the inside of the side wall of the housing”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the seating portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “a bracket…configured to overlap the ends of the protruding portions”. The limitation is indefinite and causes confusion because it is unclear what the intended language is meant to encompass with regard to the bracket overlapping the ends of the protruding portions. For example, the as shown in FIG. 11 of the Specification, the ends of the protruding portions 1520 and 1530 contain grooves 1521 and 1531 which the end 4223 of the bent portion 4222 of the bracket 420 engages. Thus the bracket is fully engaging the protruding portions. However it is unclear what is meant by the relationship that “a bracket…[is] configured to overlap the ends of the protruding portions”. The Specification does not further make clear what the relationship of the bracket overlapping the protruding portions encompasses. A skilled artisan would not appropriately determine the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation. For purposes of the examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation as “a bracket…configured to overlap and engage the ends of the protruding portions”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 may be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claim including the recitation “…a non-conductive cap disposed in the recess and facing the recess, wherein the non-conductive cap includes a protruding portion…a bracket disposed inside the side wall of the housing and supporting the antenna module, the bracket including a coupling hole through which the protruding portion is inserted…”
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claim including the recitation “…a non-conductive cap disposed in the recess and comprising protruding portions passing through a non-conductive portion of the side wall…a bracket disposed in the inside of the side wall of the housing such that the antenna module is mounted thereon, and configured to overlap and engage the ends of the protruding portions”.
For example, the claimed invention is not taught by the prior art reference Varma (US 20210167487 A1) and/or Lim (US 20200194879 A1). Varma and Lim fail to teach a non-conductive cap having a protruding portion such that it is coupled through coupling holes in the bracket or engaged to the bracket. There is no reason or suggestion in the prior art reference for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Varma and/or Lim to include the claimed invention of claim 1 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/AMAL PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights