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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 6/29/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “all Species A-N have significant overlapped limitations”. This is not found persuasive because: the identified species further limit the claimed invention(s) from one another in a mutually exclusive manner (see MPEP 806.04(f)); further, the identified overlapped limitations are already identified in the office action of 5/28/26 as being representative of the generic invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 are considered herein.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is indefinite in scope in that the limitation of “an axial ratio of circular polarization of the antenna in the first frequency band is less than or equal to 10 dB” is not defined in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to sufficiently limit the scope of the claimed range, nor to specify by what mechanism other than the claimed structure said axial ratio is achieved, thereby either not further limiting the scope of the claim or not defining in such clear, concise, and exact terms the structure by which this limitation is achieved. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-10 are included for their dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the structure achieving the claimed “polarization manner”.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of “wherein in the first frequency band, a current on the first frame is symmetrically distributed along the ground point at a first moment, and the current on the first frame is asymmetrically distributed along the ground point at a second moment” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact: the intended meaning of “symmetrically” and “asymmetrically”, such that it is not made clear by what orientation or metric the claimed currents are intended to be symmetric or asymmetric; further, the meaning of “a first moment” and “a second moment” are not defined in such terms as to reasonably limit the scope of the claimed invention. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido Lopez et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0099138) in view of Park et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0302149).
Regarding claim 1, Garrido Lopez et al. teaches (Fig. 5) an electronic device, comprising: a conductive frame (12; see ¶25) having a first position (top left corner) and a second position (top right corner), wherein a frame between the first position and the second position is a first frame (see Fig. 5); and an antenna comprising the first frame (40 forming slots 68), wherein the antenna is configured to generate a first resonance and a second resonance (corresponding to any given frequencies between F1 and F2; see ¶99), wherein a ratio of a frequency of the first resonance to a frequency of the second resonance is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 1.5 (sequential harmonic modes of an antenna naturally have ratios between 1 and 1.5; i.e., 4:3, 5:4, 6:5; see ¶68); an operating frequency band of the antenna comprises a first frequency band, and a frequency in the first frequency band is between the frequency of the first resonance and the frequency of the second resonance (¶68 lines 4-6).
Garrido Lopez does not teach an axial ratio of circular polarization of the antenna in the first frequency band is less than or equal to 10 dB.
Park et al. teaches (Figs. 2A, 5A, 5B) an electronic device, comprising: an antenna (300), wherein the antenna is configured to generate a resonance and a second resonance (¶90); an operating frequency band of the antenna comprises a first frequency band (see Fig. 5A); and an axial ratio of circular polarization of the antenna in the first frequency band is less than or equal to 10 dB (see Fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Garrido Lopez such that an axial ratio of circular polarization of the antenna in the first frequency band is less than or equal to 10 dB, employing the teachings of Park.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the electronic device to exhibit a desirable circular polarization characteristic (Park, ¶78).
Regarding claim 2, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
Garrido Lopez does not teach wherein a polarization manner for the first resonance is orthogonal to a polarization manner for the second resonance.
Park et al. teaches (Figs. 2A, 2B, 5A, 5B) an electronic device, comprising: an antenna (300), wherein the antenna is configured to generate a resonance and a second resonance (¶90); an operating frequency band of the antenna comprises a first frequency band (see Fig. 5A); and an axial ratio of circular polarization of the antenna in the first frequency band is less than or equal to 10 dB (see Fig. 5B), wherein a polarization manner for the first resonance is orthogonal to a polarization manner for the second resonance (see Fig. 2B, crossed dipole orientation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Garrido Lopez such that a polarization manner for the first resonance is orthogonal to a polarization manner for the second resonance, employing the teachings of Park.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the electronic device to exhibit a desirable circular polarization characteristic (Park, ¶78).
Regarding claim 3, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
Garrido Lopez does not teach wherein in the first frequency band, a difference between a first gain generated by the antenna and a second gain generated by the antenna is less than 10 dB, wherein the first gain is a gain of a pattern generated by the antenna in a first polarization direction, the second gain is a gain of a pattern generated by the antenna in a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction.
Park et al. teaches (Figs. 2A, 2B, 5A, 5B) an electronic device, comprising: an antenna (300), wherein the antenna is configured to generate a resonance and a second resonance (¶90); an operating frequency band of the antenna comprises a first frequency band (see Fig. 5A); and an axial ratio of circular polarization of the antenna in the first frequency band is less than or equal to 10 dB (see Fig. 5B), wherein in the first frequency band, a difference between a first gain generated by the antenna and a second gain generated by the antenna is less than 10 dB (see Axial ratio graph, Fig. 5B), wherein the first gain is a gain of a pattern generated by the antenna in a first polarization direction, the second gain is a gain of a pattern generated by the antenna in a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction (aspects inherent to operation in circular polarization; see Fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Garrido Lopez such that in the first frequency band, a difference between a first gain generated by the antenna and a second gain generated by the antenna is less than 10 dB, wherein the first gain is a gain of a pattern generated by the antenna in a first polarization direction, the second gain is a gain of a pattern generated by the antenna in a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction, employing the teachings of Park.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the electronic device to exhibit a desirable circular polarization characteristic (Park, ¶78).
Regarding claim 5, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the frequency of the first resonance to the frequency of the second resonance is greater than or equal to 1.2 and less than or equal to 1.35 (5:4 ratio of harmonic resonances results in a ratio of 1.25).
Regarding claim 6, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the antenna further comprises a ground plate (12R, see ¶24); the first frame comprises a ground point (end near 72 which connects frame 12W to 12R, for example); and the first frame is grounded at the ground point through the ground plate (see Fig. 5, ¶34).
Regarding claim 7, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein in the first frequency band, a current on the first frame is symmetrically distributed along the ground point at a first moment, and the current on the first frame is asymmetrically distributed along the ground point at a second moment (see ¶74, ¶82, ¶92; currents l1, l2, l3, l4 may be construed as asymmetric or symmetric with one another, i.e., balanced or unbalanced, or rotationally or laterally symmetric or asymmetric).
Regarding claim 8, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein the ground point is disposed in a central region of the first frame (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein the first frame is divided into a first radiator part (left) and a second radiator part (right) by the ground point, and an electrical length of the first radiator part is different from an electrical length of the second radiator part (see disposition of feeds 55-1 and 55-1 on left and right parts respectively of 12-W, differentiating the corresponding lengths of slots 68-1 and 68-2; see ¶90).
Regarding claim 10, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, further comprising a capacitor, wherein one end of the capacitor is electrically connected to the first frame at a ground point, and the other end of the capacitor is grounded (see ¶56 lines 1-5; the inclusion of a capacitor for tuning purposes would require it to be electrically connected to the first frame at a ground point and the other end to be grounded, as would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrido Lopez et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0099138) in view of Park et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0302149) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamagajo et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0204518).
Regarding claim 4, Garrido Lopez teaches the electronic device according to claim 1.
Garrido Lopez does not teach wherein in the first frequency band, a difference between a first phase generated by the antenna and a second phase generated by the antenna is greater than 25° and less than 155°, wherein the first phase is a phase of the antenna in a first polarization direction, the second phase is a phase of the antenna in a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction.
Yamagajo et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 10) an electronic device, comprising: a first frame (11, 12); and an antenna comprising the first frame (see ¶36), wherein the antenna is configured to generate a first resonance and a second resonance (see ¶5), an operating frequency band of the antenna comprises a first frequency band (see Fig. 10); wherein in the first frequency band, a difference between a first phase generated by the antenna and a second phase generated by the antenna is greater than 25° and less than 155° (see ¶22), wherein the first phase is a phase of the antenna in a first polarization direction, the second phase is a phase of the antenna in a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction (see ¶22 lines 7-14)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Garrido Lopez such that in the first frequency band, a difference between a first phase generated by the antenna and a second phase generated by the antenna is greater than 25° and less than 155°, wherein the first phase is a phase of the antenna in a first polarization direction, the second phase is a phase of the antenna in a second polarization direction, and the first polarization direction is orthogonal to the second polarization direction, employing the teachings of Yamagajo.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna of the electronic device to radiate a circularly polarized wave regardless of the distance to the conductor (Yamagajo, ¶22 lines 14-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights