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 06/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argued that “According to paragraph [0097], Guterman merely mentions the other types of resonating elements RE, but it is silent on the REs arranged between the PARs” and “In fact, according to FIG. 31 of Guterman, all of the REs are NOT positioned between the PARs. Therefore, the teaching of Guterman is entirely different from Claim 7 of the present application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because although Guterman does not explicitly disclose wherein the first antenna element, the second antenna element, the third antenna element, and the fourth antenna element are disposed between the first metal element and the second metal element, Guterman discloses “Satisfactory antenna performance for structures 34 can be obtained by optimizing the placement of resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR within slot 56” (para [0082]) and “Desensitization of antenna structures 34 to the presence of slot 56 and optimization of the location of antenna resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR to ensure satisfactory antenna efficiency and isolation between resonating elements may be accomplished by locating components 60 (i.e., antenna resonating elements RE and/or parasitic elements PAR) at appropriate locations within slot 56” (para [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the antenna elements taught in Guterman between the first metal element and the second metal element as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant argued that “After reviewing the figures and descriptions of Guterman and Tanaka, Applicant cannot find any suggestion of the above distinct features.
As set forth above, Applicant respectfully submits that Guterman and Tanaka fail to disclose or suggest the aforementioned features of amended Claim 19. Therefore, Applicant believes that independent Claim 19 is novel and non-obvious over Guterman and Tanaka, and allowable in its present form.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because although Guterman does not disclose wherein a distance between the first feeding point and the metal element is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band, Guterman discloses the placement of the antenna elements and the first and second metal elements can be rearranged at appropriate locations (“Satisfactory antenna performance for structures 34 can be obtained by optimizing the placement of resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR within slot 56”, para [0082], and “Desensitization of antenna structures 34 to the presence of slot 56 and optimization of the location of antenna resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR to ensure satisfactory antenna efficiency and isolation between resonating elements may be accomplished by locating components 60 (i.e., antenna resonating elements RE and/or parasitic elements PAR) at appropriate locations within slot 56”, para [0097]).
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 distance between the first feeding point and the first metal element taught in Guterman to be equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
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 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guterman et al, US-20120068893-A1 (hereinafter Guterman).
Regarding claim 1, Guterman discloses the following:
a communication device, comprising:
a metal ground element (62, fig. 31/surrounding conductive portions of housing 12, fig. 5, para [0062]), providing a ground voltage (para [0062]: it is implied that the metal ground element would provide a ground voltage), wherein the metal ground element has a slot region (56, fig. 5, para [0062]);
a first antenna element (resonating element RE, fig. 31 below), having a first feeding point (110, fig. 17);
a second antenna element (RE), having a second feeding point (110);
a third antenna element (RE), having a third feeding point (110);
wherein the first antenna element, the second antenna element, the third antenna element are adjacent to the slot region (56);
a first metal element (PAR, fig. 31), coupled to the ground voltage (PAR 98 coupled to ground G, fig. 16), wherein the first metal element at least partially extends across the slot region (fig. 31, para [0079]);
a second metal element (PAR), coupled to the ground voltage (PAR 98 coupled to ground G, fig. 16), wherein the second metal element at least partially extends across the slot region (fig. 31, para [0079]); and
a nonconductive support element (92, fig. 16, para [0079]), wherein the first antenna element, the second antenna element, the third antenna element, the fourth antenna element, the first metal element, and the second metal element are disposed on the nonconductive support element (fig. 16).
Although Guterman does not explicitly disclose the communication comprising a fourth antenna element, having a fourth feeding point, Guterman discloses there could be three or more antenna elements RE (para [0082]) which has a feeding point 110 (fig. 17).
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 fourth antenna element as claimed to the communication device taught in Guterman, 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). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired antenna performance and satisfy the demands of a MIMO protocol or other design criteria (Guterman, para [0082]).
Although Guterman does not explicitly disclose wherein the first antenna element, the second antenna element, the third antenna element, and the fourth antenna element are disposed between the first metal element and the second metal element, Guterman discloses the placement of the antenna elements and the first and second metal elements can be arranged to appropriate locations (“Satisfactory antenna performance for structures 34 can be obtained by optimizing the placement of resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR within slot 56”, para [0082], and “Desensitization of antenna structures 34 to the presence of slot 56 and optimization of the location of antenna resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR to ensure satisfactory antenna efficiency and isolation between resonating elements may be accomplished by locating components 60 (i.e., antenna resonating elements RE and/or parasitic elements PAR) at appropriate locations within slot 56”, para [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the antenna elements taught in Guterman between the first metal element and the second metal element as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
PNG
media_image1.png
253
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Guterman discloses wherein the metal ground element (surrounding conductive portions of housing 12, fig. 5, para [0062]) comprises a first portion (12A) and a second portion (12B) coupled to each other, and the slot region (56) is positioned between the first portion and the second portion (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Guterman discloses wherein the first portion of the metal ground element is configured as an upper cover housing (12A, fig. 5), and the second portion of the metal ground element is configured as a base housing (12B).
Regarding claim 4, Guterman discloses wherein the slot region (56, fig. 5) substantially has a straight-line shape (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Guterman discloses wherein the slot region (56, fig. 5) is a closed slot (para [0062]) with a first closed end and a second closed end (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, although Guterman does not explicitly disclose wherein the first metal element is adjacent to the first closed end of the slot region, and the second metal element is adjacent to the second closed end of the slot region, Guterman discloses the placement of the first and second metal elements can be adjusted (para [0082], [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second metal elements taught in Guterman to be adjacent the first and second closed ends of the slot region as claimed , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
Regarding claim 9, although Guterman does not explicitly disclose wherein the first feeding point, the second feeding point, the third feeding point, and the fourth feeding point are positioned on a same surface of the nonconductive support element, Guterman discloses one feeding point (110, fig. 17) is positioned on a surface of the nonconductive support element (92) and the antenna elements RE are disposed on the same surface of the nonconductive surface 92, fig. 16, it is construed that the feeding points to the antenna elements are disposed on the same surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the feeding points taught in Guterman to be positioned on a same surface of the nonconductive support element as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to simplify the manufacturing process and reduce the thickness of the nonconductive element.
Regarding claim 10, Guterman discloses wherein all of the first antenna element, the second antenna element, the third antenna element, and the fourth antenna element cover a first frequency band, a second frequency band, and a third frequency band (para [0053]: GPS band at 1575MHz, 2.4GHz and 5GHz).
Regarding claim 11, although Guterman does not explicitly disclose wherein the first frequency band is from 2400MHz to 2500MHz, the second frequency band is from 5150MHz to 5850MHz, and the third frequency band is from 5925MHz to 7125MHz, Guterman discloses the lengths of the antenna elements can be adjust to achieve the desired operating frequencies (para [0070]-[0071]).
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 frequency bands of the communication device taught in Guterman to be as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired operating frequency bands depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 12, although Guterman does not disclose wherein a first distance between the first feeding point and the first metal element is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band, Guterman discloses the placement of the antenna elements and the first and second metal elements can be arranged to appropriate locations (“Satisfactory antenna performance for structures 34 can be obtained by optimizing the placement of resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR within slot 56”, para [0082], and “Desensitization of antenna structures 34 to the presence of slot 56 and optimization of the location of antenna resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR to ensure satisfactory antenna efficiency and isolation between resonating elements may be accomplished by locating components 60 (i.e., antenna resonating elements RE and/or parasitic elements PAR) at appropriate locations within slot 56”, para [0097]).
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 distance between the first feeding point and the first metal element taught in Guterman to be equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
Regarding claim 13, although Guterman does not disclose wherein a second distance between the second feeding point and the second metal element is substantially equal to 0.5 wavelength of the first frequency band, , Guterman discloses the placement of the antenna elements and the first and second metal elements can be arranged to appropriate locations (“Satisfactory antenna performance for structures 34 can be obtained by optimizing the placement of resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR within slot 56”, para [0082], and “Desensitization of antenna structures 34 to the presence of slot 56 and optimization of the location of antenna resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR to ensure satisfactory antenna efficiency and isolation between resonating elements may be accomplished by locating components 60 (i.e., antenna resonating elements RE and/or parasitic elements PAR) at appropriate locations within slot 56”, para [0097]).
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 distance between the second feeding point and the second metal element taught in Guterman to be equal to 0.5 wavelength of the first frequency band as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
Regarding claim 14, although Guterman does not disclose wherein a third distance between the third feeding point and the second metal element is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band, , Guterman discloses the placement of the antenna elements and the first and second metal elements can be arranged to appropriate locations (“Satisfactory antenna performance for structures 34 can be obtained by optimizing the placement of resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR within slot 56”, para [0082], and “Desensitization of antenna structures 34 to the presence of slot 56 and optimization of the location of antenna resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR to ensure satisfactory antenna efficiency and isolation between resonating elements may be accomplished by locating components 60 (i.e., antenna resonating elements RE and/or parasitic elements PAR) at appropriate locations within slot 56”, para [0097]).
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 distance between the third feeding point and the second metal element taught in Guterman to be equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
Regarding claim 15, although Guterman does not disclose wherein a fourth distance between the fourth feeding point and the first metal element is substantially equal to 0.5 wavelength of the first frequency band, , Guterman discloses the placement of the antenna elements and the first and second metal elements can be arranged to appropriate locations (“Satisfactory antenna performance for structures 34 can be obtained by optimizing the placement of resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR within slot 56”, para [0082], and “Desensitization of antenna structures 34 to the presence of slot 56 and optimization of the location of antenna resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR to ensure satisfactory antenna efficiency and isolation between resonating elements may be accomplished by locating components 60 (i.e., antenna resonating elements RE and/or parasitic elements PAR) at appropriate locations within slot 56”, para [0097]).
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 distance between the fourth feeding point and the first metal element taught in Guterman to be equal to 0.5 wavelength of the first frequency band as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
Regarding claim 16, although Guterman does not disclose wherein a width of each of the first metal element and the second metal element is greater than or equal to 0.2mm, 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 frequency bands of the communication device taught in Guterman to be as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired radiating characteristics depending on the requirements of the application because changing the size of the metal elements would affect the radiating characteristics of the antenna.
Regarding claim 17, Guterman discloses wherein an open end of the first metal element (98, fig. 16) is aligned with the third feeding point and the fourth feeding point (110, fig. 17).
Regarding claim 18, Guterman discloses wherein an open end of the second metal element (98, fig. 16) is aligned with the first feeding point and the second feeding point (110, fig. 17).
Regarding claim 19, Guterman discloses the following:
a communication device, comprising:
a metal ground element (62, fig. 31/surrounding conductive portions of housing 12, fig. 5, para [0062]), providing a ground voltage (para [0062]: it is implied that the metal ground element would provide a ground voltage), wherein the metal ground element has a slot region (56, fig. 5, para [0062]);
a first antenna element (resonating element RE, fig. 31 above), having a first feeding point (110, fig. 17);
a second antenna element (RE), having a second feeding point (110, fig. 17), wherein the first antenna element and the second antenna element are adjacent to the slot region (56, fig. 31);
a metal element (PAR), coupled to the ground voltage (PAR 98 coupled to ground G, fig. 16), wherein the metal element at least partially extends across the slot region (fig. 31, para [0079]); and
a nonconductive support element (92, fig. 16, para [0079]), wherein the first antenna element (RE), the second antenna element (RE), and the metal element (PAR) are disposed on the nonconductive support element (fig. 16);
wherein the first antenna element and the second antenna element cover a first frequency band (para [0097]: antenna resonating elements RE may be formed using dual band (e.g., 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz)).
Although Guterman does not disclose wherein a distance between the first feeding point and the metal element is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band, Guterman discloses the placement of the antenna elements and the metal element can be arranged to appropriate locations (“Satisfactory antenna performance for structures 34 can be obtained by optimizing the placement of resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR within slot 56”, para [0082], and “Desensitization of antenna structures 34 to the presence of slot 56 and optimization of the location of antenna resonating elements RE and parasitic elements PAR to ensure satisfactory antenna efficiency and isolation between resonating elements may be accomplished by locating components 60 (i.e., antenna resonating elements RE and/or parasitic elements PAR) at appropriate locations within slot 56”, para [0097]).
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 distance between the first feeding point and the first metal element taught in Guterman to be equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to improve the antenna efficiency and ensure the isolation between the antenna elements in order to improve the antenna performance (Guterman, para [0097]).
Regarding claim 20, Guterman discloses wherein the first antenna element (RE, figs. 16, 31) and the second antenna element (RE, figs. 16, 31) are adjacent to the metal element (PAR, figs. 16, 31).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guterman as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Tanaka, US-20210066808-A1.
Regarding claim 8, Guterman discloses wherein the nonconductive support element (92, fig. 16) has a first surface (94) and a second surface different from each other (fig. 16).
Guterman does not disclose the first feeding point and the second feeding point are positioned on the first surface, and the third feeding point and the fourth feeding point are positioned on the second surface.
Tanaka suggests the feeding points (G4-G6, fig. 9) are positions on different surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second feeding points taught in Guterman on the first surface and the third and fourth feeding points on the second surface as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to increase the isolation between the feeding points to reduce interference between difference signals in order to improve the antenna performance.
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 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 HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights