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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 11, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: COMMUNICATION DEVICE WITH MULTIFREQUENCY ANTENNA STRUCTURE.
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)(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 1-8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hotta et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0079639 A1), hereinafter known as Hotta.
Regarding claim 1, Hotta discloses (Fig. 1, 30, and 32) A communication device (Fig. 1), comprising: a metal frame element (17, 102); a ground element (22), coupled to a first connection point (22) on the metal frame element ([0051]); a feeding radiation element (36), having a feeding point (114a); a first radiation element (18a), coupled to the ground element (22), wherein the first radiation element is adjacent to the feeding radiation element (36); a second radiation element (62), coupled to a second connection point (64) on the metal frame element (17, 102), wherein the second radiation element (62) is adjacent to the feeding radiation element (36); a third radiation element (34), coupled to the ground element (22), wherein the third radiation element (34) is adjacent to the feeding radiation element (36); and a nonconductive support element (14), disposed on the metal frame element (17, 102), wherein the ground element (22), the feeding radiation element (36), the first radiation element (18a), the second radiation element (62), and the third radiation element (34) are distributed over the nonconductive support element (14); wherein an antenna structure (60’) is formed by the metal frame element (17, 102), the ground element (22), the feeding radiation element (36), the first radiation element (18a), the second radiation element (62), and the third radiation element (34).
Regarding claim 2, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 1 and 32) wherein the metal frame element (17, 102) is an internal component of the communication device ([0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 30 and 32) wherein the nonconductive support element (14) has a first surface (bottom of 14 or 14a or 14c), a second surface (14a or 14b or bottom of 14), a third surface (14b or 14c or 14a), and a fourth surface (14d), the second surface is positioned between the first surface and the third surface, and the fourth surface (14d) is attached to the metal frame element (17).
Regarding claim 4, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 32) wherein the ground element (22) is disposed on the first surface (14a) of the nonconductive support element (14).
Regarding claim 5, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 32) wherein the feeding radiation element (36) and the first radiation element (18a) extend from the first surface (bottom of 14) through the second surface (14a) onto the third surface (14b) of the nonconductive support element (14).
Regarding claim 6, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 32) wherein the second radiation element (62) extends from the second surface (bottom of 14) onto the third surface (14a) of the nonconductive support element (14).
Regarding claim 7, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 32) wherein the third radiation element (34) extends from the first surface (14a) onto the second surface (14b) of the nonconductive support element (14).
Regarding claim 8, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 32) wherein the first radiation element (18a) comprises a bifurcated portion (bifurcates at 36 to 18a).
Regarding claim 13, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 20 and 32) wherein the antenna structure covers a first frequency band (left band of Fig. 20), a second frequency band (middle band of Fig. 20), and a third frequency band (right band of Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 15, Hotta further discloses (Fig. 32) wherein a length of the first radiation element (18) is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the first frequency band ([0066]).
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta in view of Chang et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0107295 A1), hereinafter known as Chang.
Regarding claim 9, Hotta further teaches (Fig. 8) wherein a first coupling gap is formed between the feeding radiation element (24) and the bifurcated portion of the first radiation element (16e) but does not specifically teach and a width of the first coupling gap is from 1mm to 2mm.
However, Chang teaches (Fig. 3) a width of the first coupling gap (GC1) is from 1mm to 2mm ([0039]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Chang to include “a width of the first coupling gap is from 1mm to 2mm,” as taught by Chang, for the purpose of optimizing bandwidth and impedance matching (see also [0039]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 10, Hotta does not specifically teach wherein the feeding radiation element is disposed between the second radiation element and the third radiation element.
However, Chang teaches (Fig. 3) wherein the feeding radiation element (130) is disposed between the second radiation element (180) and the third radiation element (170).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Chang to include “wherein the feeding radiation element is disposed between the second radiation element and the third radiation element,” as taught by Chang, for the purpose of improving bandwidth and impedance matching (see also [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Hotta further teaches (Fig. 32) wherein a second coupling gap is formed between the second radiation element (66) and the feeding radiation element (36), but does not specifically teach and a width of the second coupling gap is from 0.5mm to 1.2mm.
However, Chang teaches (Fig. 3) a width of the second coupling gap (GC3) is from 0.5mm to 1.2mm ([0039]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Chang to include “a width of the second coupling gap is from 0.5mm to 1.2mm,” as taught by Chang, for the purpose of optimizing bandwidth and impedance matching (see also [0039]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12, Hotta further teaches (Fig. 32) wherein a third coupling gap is formed between the third radiation element (34b) and the feeding radiation element (36), but does not specifically teach and a width of the third coupling gap is from 0.2mm to 0.6mm.
However, Chang teaches (Fig. 3) a width of the third coupling gap (GC2) is from 0.2mm to 0.6mm ([0039]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Chang to include “a width of the third coupling gap is from 0.2mm to 0.6mm,” as taught by Chang, for the purpose of optimizing bandwidth and impedance matching (see also [0039]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta in view of Irci et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0085488 A1), hereinafter known as Irci.
Regarding claim 14, Hotta does not specifically teach wherein the first frequency band is from 1166MHz to 1186MHz, the second frequency band is from 1710MHz to 2690MHz, and the third frequency band is from 3300MHz to 6000MHz.
However, Irci teaches (Fig. 7) wherein the first frequency band is from 1166MHz to 1186MHz (L5 GPS), the second frequency band is from 1710MHz to 2690MHz (MB and HB), and the third frequency band is from 3300MHz to 6000MHz (UHB and WLAN 5GHz).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Irci to include “wherein the first frequency band is from 1166MHz to 1186MHz, the second frequency band is from 1710MHz to 2690MHz, and the third frequency band is from 3300MHz to 6000MHz,” as taught by Irci, for the purpose of covering desired frequencies (see also [0087]).
Regarding claim 18, Hotta does not specifically teach further comprising: a first conductive gasket, wherein the ground element is further coupled through the first conductive gasket to the first connection point on the metal frame element.
However, Irci teaches (Fig. 11 and 15) a first conductive gasket (210; [0145]), wherein the ground element (176) is further coupled through the first conductive gasket (210; [0145]) to the first connection point on the metal frame element (58).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Irci to include “a first conductive gasket, wherein the ground element is further coupled through the first conductive gasket to the first connection point on the metal frame element,” as taught by Irci, for the purpose of using a desired interconnect (see also [0145]).
Regarding claim 19, Hotta does not specifically teach further comprising: a second conductive gasket, wherein the second radiation element is further coupled through the second conductive gasket to the second connection point on the metal frame element.
However, Irci teaches (Fig. 15) a second conductive gasket (212; [0145]), wherein the second radiation element (40-9) is further coupled through the second conductive gasket to the second connection point on the metal frame element (58).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Irci to include “a second conductive gasket, wherein the second radiation element is further coupled through the second conductive gasket to the second connection point on the metal frame element,” as taught by Irci, for the purpose of using a desired interconnect (see also [0145]).
Regarding claim 20, Hotta does not specifically teach further comprising: an additional conductive gasket, wherein the first radiation element is further coupled through the additional conductive gasket to an auxiliary connection point on the metal frame element.
However, Irci teaches (Fig. 11 and 15) an additional gasket (210; [0145]), wherein the first radiation element (168) is further coupled through the additional conductive gasket (210; [0145]) to an auxiliary connection point (176) on the metal frame element (58).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Irci to include “an additional conductive gasket, wherein the first radiation element is further coupled through the additional conductive gasket to an auxiliary connection point on the metal frame element,” as taught by Irci, for the purpose of using a desired interconnect (see also [0145]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta in view of Li et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0028988 A1), hereinafter known as Li.
Regarding claim 16, Hotta does not specifically teach wherein a length of the second radiation element is substantially equal to 0.1667 wavelength of the second frequency band.
However, Li teaches (Fig. 1) wherein a length of the second radiation element (150) is substantially equal to 0.1667 wavelength of the second frequency band ([0047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Li to include “wherein a length of the second radiation element is substantially equal to 0.1667 wavelength of the second frequency band,” as taught by Li, for the purpose of optimizing bandwidth and impedance matching (see also [0047]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 17, Hotta does not specifically teach wherein a length of the third radiation element is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the third frequency band.
However, Li teaches (Fig. 4) wherein a length of the third radiation element (470) is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the third frequency band ([0055]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the communication device of Hotta with Li to include “wherein a length of the third radiation element is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the third frequency band,” as taught by Chang, for the purpose of optimizing bandwidth and impedance matching (see also [0055]). Such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
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 as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage 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 YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2845