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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that “As stated in para. [0020] of Pu, "The antenna 10 is bent according to two folds 14 to be a three-dimensional structure. The ground plane 15 is placed on a circuit board 16 (e.g., FR-4 board)", the antenna 10 (including the radiation plate 11) itself is formed by bending a single metal plate, while the ground plane 15 is a metal layer on the circuit board 16. The two must be manufactured separately using different processes and are not a single structure, which does not disclose the feature "an electromagnetic shielding structure, integrally connected to the grounding plane" as recited in claim 1 of the application. According to this feature, an effect "the electromagnetic shielding structure is integrally connected to the grounding plane, so that the antenna structure, the grounding plane, and the electromagnetic shielding structure may be integrally made of a single piece of metal material, and the structure of the antenna module may be streamlined and easily assembled with the device body thereby. Accordingly, the manufacturing and assembly costs of the antenna module may be reduced, and the antenna module, including the electromagnetic shielding structure, may be smoothly assembled in the limited configuration space of the device body" as recited in para. [0018] of the application, that possesses the superior technical advantages over Pu, is achieved. Furthermore, as shown in Figs. 1-8 of the application, the integrally antenna structure 122 and the grounding plane 124 are coplanar, forming a two-dimensional planar structure which is not three-dimensional, and a third-dimensional electromagnetic shielding structure is then placed on this two-dimensional planar structure to effectively provide electromagnetic shielding for the antenna structure 122 within the two-dimensional planar structure. Conversely, the antenna 10 of Pu is a three-dimensional structure formed by bending a single metal plate and is placed on the ground plane 15 on the circuit board 16, thus becoming a three-dimensional structure, which is different from the above-mentioned structure of the application. The other cited references do not disclose, teach or imply the above-mentioned feature of the application.”
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant, as the limitation in question “integrally connected to the ground plane”, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is disclosed by Pu. Pu describes the method of forming the antenna structure in Fig. 11 and [0032], but does not specify the method of how the ground plane and the antenna structure are joined. The figures show a singular structure for the final form of the antenna, which is substantially the same as the claimed invention by Applicant. The method of forming suggested by the limitation is not limiting to the final structure unless it materially changes the final apparatus. See MPEP 2113.
Secondly, if Applicant claims making the antenna structure integral would be non-obvious, the evidence from the prior art suggests otherwise. Pu recognizes that the electromagnetic shielding structure and the slot antenna can be integrally made, so extending that teaching to the ground plane would be an obvious modification. The MPEP further indicates making an apparatus integral is obvious absent a clear teaching to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.04 V.
As such, the rejection of the claims stand.
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(s) 1-7, 10-17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pu et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20100156738), hereinafter known as Pu.
Regarding claim 1, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) an antenna structure (11, 51, 60), comprising a radiating portion (17) and a feeding portion (18) coupled to each other; a grounding plane (15), adjacent to the antenna structure in a width direction of the antenna module (see Fig. 1B), wherein the feeding portion is coupled between the radiating portion and the grounding plane (see Fig. 1B); and an electromagnetic shielding structure (12, 13, 52, 61) integrally connected to the grounding plane ([0020]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) wherein the electromagnetic shielding structure comprises an electromagnetic shielding portion, and there is a spacing between the electromagnetic shielding portion and the antenna structure in a length direction of the antenna module (see Figs. 5A-5I, multiple configurations shown).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) wherein the spacing is not less than 1 mm ([0027]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) wherein a width of the electromagnetic shielding portion extending from the grounding plane in the width direction is not less than a width of the antenna structure extending from the grounding plane in the width direction (see Figs. 5A-5I).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) wherein the electromagnetic shielding structure comprises an electromagnetic shielding portion, and the electromagnetic shielding portion and the antenna structure have a spacing in the width direction (see Figs. 5A-5I).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) wherein the spacing is not less than 3 mm ([0027]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) wherein a thickness of the electromagnetic shielding structure in a thickness direction of the antenna module is not less than a thickness of the antenna structure in the thickness direction (see Figs. 5A-5I).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) a shorting portion (portion above 17), wherein the shorting portion is connected to the radiating portion (see Fig. 1A), and the grounding plane is connected to the shorting portion (see Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 11, Pu discloses (Figs. 1A-11) a device body (16); and an antenna module (10), disposed on the device body (see Figs. 1A-1B), and comprising: an antenna structure (11, 51, 60), comprising a radiating portion (17) and a feeding portion (18) coupled to each other; a grounding plane (15), adjacent to the antenna structure in a width direction of the antenna module (see Fig. 1B), wherein the feeding portion is coupled between the radiating portion and the grounding plane (see Fig. 1B); and an electromagnetic shielding structure (12, 13, 52, 61) integrally connected to the grounding plane ([0020]).
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(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20210135339), hereinafter known as Lee.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 20-21, Pu teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11, but does not teach an isolating portion.
Lee teaches an isolating portion (28), wherein the isolating portion is integrally connected to the grounding plane (112, [0090]), and wherein there is a spacing in the width direction between the isolating portion and the antenna structure (see Figs. 17-21, various configurations shown).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art include an isolating portion of Lee in the antenna apparatus of Pu since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Providing increased isolation increases performance by reducing noise.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu in view of Hung (U.S. Patent Application No. 20050104788), hereinafter known as Hung.
Regarding claims 20-21, Pu teaches the limitations of claim 11, but does not teach further details of the device body.
Hung teaches (Figs. 1-3) wherein the device body is a screen or a case of a notebook computer (see Fig. 1) and wherein the screen or the case has a back cover (1), and the antenna structure, the grounding plane, and the electromagnetic shielding structure are directly disposed on the back cover (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art use the antenna apparatus of Pu with the device body of Hung since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Incorporating the antenna of Pu into a wireless device such as a laptop (see [0006] of Pu) would provide wireless communication to the end user.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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.
/DANIEL MUNOZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights