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
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JP on 04/25/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 05/20/2025, 03/26/2025 and 10/17/2024 on have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 5 (lines 18-22). Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 11 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9-10: “the first insulator layer” should read “the at least one first insulator layer”.
Claim 1, lines 12-13: “the second insulator layer” should read “the at least one second insulator layer”.
Similar objections would be applied to claims 5, 11, 15 and 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, US-20200303821-A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Adachi et al, JP-2001060823-A (hereinafter Adachi).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses the following:
a multilayer substrate, comprising:
a multilayer body (fig. 2A) having a structure in which at least one first insulator layer (150a) and at least one second insulator layer 150a) are laminated in a Z-axis direction;
a first radiating conductor layer (111a) provided to the multilayer body to be in contact with the first insulator layer (150a);
a second radiating conductor layer (112a) provided to the multilayer body to be in contact with the second insulator layer (150a), positioned in a positive direction of a Z-axis relative to the first radiating conductor layer (fig. 2A), and overlapping the first radiating conductor layer (111a, fig. 1A) assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction, in which a frequency of an electromagnetic wave radiated or received by the second radiating conductor layer is higher than a frequency of an electromagnetic wave radiated or received by the first radiating conductor layer, or an area of the second radiating conductor layer (112a, fig. 1A) is smaller than an area of the first radiating conductor layer (111a);
a first planar ground conductor layer (201a) that is positioned in a negative direction of the Z-axis relative to the first radiating conductor layer and overlaps the first radiating conductor layer (111a) and the second radiating conductor layer (112a) assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction (fig. 1A); and
a first ground conductor layer (180a, figs. 2A-2B) that overlaps neither the first radiating conductor layer (111a) nor the second radiating conductor layer (112a) and is positioned in the positive direction of the Z-axis relative to the first radiating conductor layer assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction (figs. 2A-2B).
Lee does not disclose in which a dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer is lower than a dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer.
Adachi suggests in which a dielectric constant (εr1, page 13, para 3) of the at least one second insulator layer (12, fig. 2) is lower than a dielectric constant (εr2) of the at least one first insulator layer (22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer of the multilayer substrate taught in Lee to be lower than a dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer as suggested in Adachi as claimed for the purpose of reducing the size of the second radiating conductor layer in order to reduce the overall size of the multilayer substrate and the cost of the material while still maintain the dual-band operation of the antenna (Adachi, page 13, para 4-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
1015
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the first ground conductor layer (180a, figs. 2A-2B) has an annular shape surrounding the first radiating conductor layer (111a) and the second radiating conductor layer (112a) assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Adachi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al, US-20210151899-A1 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Adachi discloses wherein a direction orthogonal to the Z-axis direction is defined as an X-axis direction (fig. 2B), a direction orthogonal to the X-axis direction and the Z-axis direction is defined as a Y-axis direction, the first ground conductor layer (201a) is positioned in a positive direction of an X-axis, a negative direction of the X-axis a positive direction of a Y-axis, and a negative direction of the Y-axis of the first radiating conductor layer and the second radiating conductor layer assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction (fig. 2B).
The combination of Lee and Adachi does not disclose the first radiating conductor layer and the second radiating conductor layer have a rhombic shape having diagonal lines extending in the X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction.
Park suggests the first radiating conductor layer (111b-1 to 111b-4, fig. 1C, 2C) and the second radiating conductor layer (115b-1 to 115b-4) have a rhombic shape having diagonal lines extending in the X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction (fig. 1C, 2C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second radiating conductor layers taught in Lee and Adachi to have a rhombus shape as suggested in Park as claimed for the purpose of achieving the desired radiating directions and reducing the interference with the other radiating conductor layers in order to reduce the size of the antenna overall (Park, para [0133]-[0136]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Adachi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Ohtsuka et al, US-5926136-A (hereinafter Ohtsuka) and further in view of Sudo et al, US-20210057820-A1 (hereinafter Sudo).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the multilayer body has a structure in which the at least one second insulator layer, the at least one first insulator layer, and at least one third insulator layer are arranged in order of the at least one second insulator layer, the at least one first insulator layer, and the at least one third insulator layer in the negative direction of the Z-axis (Fig. 2A above).
The combination of Lee and Adachi does not disclose a dielectric constant of the at least one third insulator layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer, the multilayer substrate further includes a first matching circuit electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer, and a second matching circuit electrically coupled to the second radiating conductor layer, and at least one of the first matching circuit and the second matching circuit is in contact with the at least one third insulator layer.
Although Ohtsuka does not explicitly disclose a dielectric constant of the at least one third insulator layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer, Ohtsuka suggests a multilayer substrate comprises a plurality of insulator layers (11-13, fig. 3) having different dielectric constants (εr1- εrn) and the dielectric constant of the insulator layers can be adjusted to achieve desired operating frequency and low reflection losses (col. 2, lines 18-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dielectric constant of the at least one third insulator layer as taught in Lee and Adachi to be lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer as suggested in Ohtsuka as claimed for the purpose of achieving desired operating frequency and low reflection losses in order to improve the antenna’s performance (Ohtsuka, col. 2, lines 18-38).
The combination of Lee, Adachi and Ohtsuka does not disclose the multilayer substrate further includes a first matching circuit electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer, and a second matching circuit electrically coupled to the second radiating conductor layer, and at least one of the first matching circuit and the second matching circuit is in contact with the at least one third insulator layer.
Kwon suggests the multilayer substrate further includes a first matching circuit (161X, 163X, fig. 13, para [0086]) electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer (121), and a second matching circuit (161, 163) electrically coupled to the second radiating conductor layer (122), and at least one of the first matching circuit and the second matching circuit is in contact with the at least one third insulator layer (fig. 13: the first and second matching circuits are on the same layer with the feeding lines 141, 141x, and Lee teaches the feeding line 132a is in contact with the at least one third insulator layer 150a, fig. 12A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second matching circuits as suggested in Kwon to the multilayer substrate taught in Lee, Adachi and Ohtsuka as claimed for the purpose of matching the impedance between the feeding line and the radiating conductor layers in order to reduce the signal loss in transmitting and maintain the antenna performance.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses wherein the multilayer body has a structure in which the at least one second insulator layer, the at least one first insulator layer, and at least one third insulator layer are arranged in order of the at least one second insulator layer, the at least one first insulator layer, and the at least one third insulator layer in the negative direction of the Z-axis (Fig. 2A above),
the multilayer substrate further includes a second signal conductor layer (132a, 132b) electrically coupled to the second radiating conductor layer (112a), and at least one of the first signal conductor layer and the second signal conductor layer (112a) is in contact with the at least one third insulator layer (150a, fig. 2A above).
The combination of Lee and Adachi does not disclose a dielectric constant of the at least one third insulator layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer, the multilayer body has a first region where the at least one first insulator layer, the at least one second insulator layer, and the at least one third insulator layer are present assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction and a second region where neither the at least one first insulator layer nor the at least one second insulator layer is present and the at least one third insulator layer is present assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction, a first signal conductor layer electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer, and at least one of the first signal conductor layer and the second signal conductor layer extends from the first region to the second region.
Although Ohtsuka does not explicitly disclose a dielectric constant of the at least one third insulator layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer, Ohtsuka suggests a multilayer substrate comprises a plurality of insulator layers (11-13, fig. 3) having different dielectric constants (εr1- εrn) and the dielectric constant of the insulator layers can be adjusted to achieve desired operating frequency and low reflection losses (col. 2, lines 18-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the dielectric constant of the at least one third insulator layer as taught in Lee and Adachi to be lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer as suggested in Ohtsuka as claimed for the purpose of achieving desired operating frequency and low reflection losses in order to improve the antenna’s performance (Ohtsuka, col. 2, lines 18-38).
Ohtsuka suggests the multilayer body has a first region (fig. 3 below) where the at least one first insulator layer (12), the at least one second insulator layer (13), and the at least one third insulator layer (11) are present assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction and a second region (fig. 3) where neither the at least one first insulator layer nor the at least one second insulator layer is present and the at least one third insulator layer is present assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction (fig. 3) and at least one of the first signal conductor layer and the second signal conductor layer extends from the first region to the second region (fig. 3: the signal conductor layer/feeding circuit is layer 18, it is implied that the signal conductor layer has to extend from the first region to the second region to be able to feed the radiating conductor layer in the first region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer substrate taught in Lee and Adachi to have first and second regions as suggested in Ohtsuka as claimed for the purpose of reducing the unnecessary material from the multilayer substrate to reduce the overall weight and cost of the design (Ohtsuka, col. 7, lines 16-40).
Although the combination of Lee, Adachi and Ohtsuka does not disclose a first signal conductor layer electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same technique to feed signal to the radiating conductor layer by using a signal conductor layer electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Sudo applied as a teaching reference suggests a first signal conductor layer (141, fig. 11) electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer (121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide first signal conductor layer as suggested in Sudo to the multilayer substrate taught in Lee, Adachi and Ohtsuka as claimed for the purpose of increasing the distance between the two different signals in order to reduce the interference to improve the antenna’s performance (Lee, para [0078]-[0079]).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Adachi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Lee et al, US-20210320417-A1 (hereinafter Lee’417).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses wherein the first ground conductor layer (180a, figs. 2A-2B) has an annular shape surrounding the first radiating conductor layer (111a) and the second radiating conductor layer (112a) assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction.
Although Lee does not explicitly disclose the multilayer substrate according to Claim 1, further comprising: a third radiating conductor layer provided to the multilayer body to be in contact with the first insulator layer; and a fourth radiating conductor layer provided to the multilayer body to be in contact with the second insulator layer, positioned in the positive direction of the Z-axis relative to the third radiating conductor layer, and overlapping the third radiating conductor layer assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction, in which a frequency of an electromagnetic wave radiated or received by the fourth radiating conductor layer is higher than a frequency of an electromagnetic wave radiated or received by the third radiating conductor layer, or an area of the fourth radiating conductor layer is smaller than an area of the third radiating conductor layer, Lee discloses there are a plurality of antenna apparatuses comprising first and second radiating conductor layers 111a, 112a as shown in figs. 1A-3B (figs. 4A-4D, 6A-6B, para [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third and fourth radiating conductor layers to the multilayer substrate taught in as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Lee does not disclose wherein the first ground conductor layer has an annular shape surrounding the third radiating conductor layer, and the fourth radiating conductor layer assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction.
Lee’417 suggests wherein the first ground conductor layer (4111, figs. 6A-6B) has an annular shape surrounding a plurality of radiating conductor layers (420, 430).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first ground conductor layer surrounding the third and the fourth conductor layers as suggested in Lee to the multilayer substrate taught in Lee and Adachi as claimed for the purpose of shielding the third and the fourth conductor layers from noise degenerated by other electronic components in the application in order to maintain the antenna performance (Lee’417, para [0115]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Adachi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Schillmeier et al, JP-2007531436-A (hereinafter Schillmeier).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the at least one second insulator layer (150a, fig. 2A) is positioned in the negative direction of the Z-axis relative to the second radiating conductor layer (112a).
The combination of Lee and Adachi does not disclose the multilayer body further includes a protection layer that is positioned in the positive direction of the Z-axis relative to the at least one second insulator layer and covers the second radiating conductor layer, a dielectric constant of the protection layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer, and an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the protection layer is larger than an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the at least one second insulator layer.
Schillmeier suggests the multilayer body further includes a protection layer (6, fig. 2 which provides protection, page 5, para 3, i.e. protection layer) that is positioned in the positive direction of the Z-axis relative to the at least one second insulator layer (3) and covers the second radiating conductor layer (4), a dielectric constant of the protection layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer (page 2, Background-Art section, para 2: the dielectric constant of the protection layer is small, it is implied that the dielectric constant of the protection layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer), and an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the protection layer is larger than an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the at least one second insulator layer (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the protection layer having a lower dielectric constant than the second insulator layer as suggested in Schillmeier to the multilayer substrate taught in Lee and Adachi as claimed for the purpose of providing protection to the second radiating conductor layer from the outer impact while not affecting the radiation characteristics of the antenna (Schillmeier, Background-Art section, para 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Adachi as applied to claim 1 above in view of Avser et al, 20200106192 (hereinafter Avser).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses wherein the at least one second insulator layer (150a, fig. 2A) is positioned in the negative direction of the Z-axis relative to the second radiating conductor layer (112a).
The combination of Lee and Adachi does not disclose the multilayer body further includes a protection layer that is positioned in the positive direction of the Z-axis relative to the at least one second insulator layer and covers the second radiating conductor layer, a dielectric constant of the protection layer is higher than the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer, and an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the protection layer is smaller than an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the at least one second insulator layer.
Avser suggests the multilayer body further includes a protection layer (130, 136, fig. 7) that is positioned in the positive direction of the Z-axis relative to the at least one second insulator layer (142) and covers the second radiating conductor layer (106), and an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the protection layer is smaller than an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the at least one second insulator layer (fig. 7).
Although Avser does not explicitly disclose a dielectric constant of the protection layer is higher than the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer, Avser teaches that the dielectric constant of the cover layer 130 can be adjusted to optimize the antenna impedance (para [0099]-[0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the protection layer having higher dielectric constant than the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer as suggested in Avser to the multilayer substrate taught in Lee and Adachi as claimed for the purpose of providing protection to the second radiating conductor layer from the outer impact and improving the antenna’s performance (Avser, para [0099]-[0100]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 15-20 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 3, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “a dielectric constant of the at least one third insulator layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer, the multilayer substrate further includes a first matching circuit electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer, and a second matching circuit electrically coupled to the second radiating conductor layer, and at least one of the first matching circuit and the second matching circuit is in contact with the at least one third insulator layer”.
Regarding claim 4, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “a dielectric constant of the at least one third insulator layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one first insulator layer, the multilayer body has a first region where the at least one first insulator layer, the at least one second insulator layer, and the at least one third insulator layer are present assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction and a second region where neither the at least one first insulator layer nor the at least one second insulator layer is present and the at least one third insulator layer is present assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction, the multilayer substrate further includes a first signal conductor layer electrically coupled to the first radiating conductor layer, and a second signal conductor layer electrically coupled to the second radiating conductor layer, and at least one of the first signal conductor layer and the second signal conductor layer is in contact with the at least one third insulator layer and extends from the first region to the second region.”
Regarding claim 15, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “wherein the first ground conductor layer has an annular shape surrounding the first radiating conductor layer, the second radiating conductor layer, the third radiating conductor layer, and the fourth radiating conductor layer assuming it is viewed in the Z-axis direction”.
Regarding claim 17, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “the multilayer body further includes a protection layer that is positioned in the positive direction of the Z-axis relative to the at least one second insulator layer and covers the second radiating conductor layer, a dielectric constant of the protection layer is lower than the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer, and an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the protection layer is larger than an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the at least one second insulator layer.”
Regarding claim 18, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of “the multilayer body further includes a protection layer that is positioned in the positive direction of the Z-axis relative to the at least one second insulator layer and covers the second radiating conductor layer, a dielectric constant of the protection layer is higher than the dielectric constant of the at least one second insulator layer, and an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the protection layer is smaller than an area of the second radiating conductor layer in contact with the at least one second insulator layer.”
However, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 5-7, 16 and 19-20 are considered allowable due to their respective dependencies.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Ying et al, WO-2019076928-A1, fig. 5A-5B: an annular ground conductor layer surrounding stacked radiating conductor layers
Amadjikpe et al, US-20170353338-A1, fig. 7: an annular ground conductor layer surrounding stacked radiating conductor layers
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845