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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230231294 A1, hereinafter “Young” in view of KR 20220008348 A (hereinafter “KR”).
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a display device comprising
a display panel including a display area (display panel of image display device, abstract [0021], [0113]) and a non-display region disposed outside the display area ([0124]: peripheral/bezel area surrounding display panel), the display panel including a flexible substrate including a protruded area ([0131], [0132]: first and second circuit boards connected to third circuit board via connectors) extended from a portion of the non-display region ([0121]); and
an antenna circuit board connected to the protruded area ([0017]: flexible circuit boards (FPCB) bent around display surfaces), at least one transmitting antenna / plurality of antennas ([0044], [0045]: first antenna device and second antenna device including antenna units), antennas disposed in different regions of the display panel ([0115], [0118]: antennas disposed on top, lateral, and bottom surfaces of display panel).
However, it does not explicitly teach the segmentation of the non-display region into: first area along long side, second area along short side, and third area at a corner, and explicit grouping of antennas within such defined regions.
In anaglous art, KR teaches antenna arrays disposed in distinct regions of a display panel (first antenna array in a first area of the screen cover), multiple regions spatially separated across the display(second antenna array in a second area located at an opposite side of the display), placement of antennas at different positions (e.g., top and bottom regions) (antennas arranged in distinct regions for improved performance).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the display device of Young to arrange the antenna units in distinct regions of the non-display area of the display panel as taught by KR. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the region-based antenna placement of KR to the system of Young in order to improve antenna performance and coverage, reduce signal interference between antennas, and efficiently utilize limited space in display-integrated devices.
In claims 9, 14 and 22 they are substantially the same limitations as claim 1, with only rearrangement of long side / short side assignment, which region holds the second receiving antenna, and wording variations (orthogonal sides vs long/short side). Claim 9 swaps long/short side placement. Claim 14 moves second receiving antenna to different region. Claim 22 uses “orthogonal sides” instead of long/short. They are obvious because the combination of: Young provides antennas on top / side / bottom / multiple regions, and KR provides antennas in distinct regions across the display. The secondary reference teaches flexible placement of antennas across different regions of the display panel.
It would have been obvious to rearrange antenna placement among available regions and assign antennas to different sides or corners because this is routine spatial design choice for performance optimization and space constraints.
Regarding claim 2, Young discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the at least one transmitting antenna includes a first antenna, and the plurality of first receiving antennas include a second antenna and a third antenna, which are oriented in parallel to one other and receive with the same polarization ([0005]: transmitting antenna + plurality of receiving antennas with same polarization, [0043]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to configure antenna elements with the same polarization to ensure efficient signal reception/transmission and simplify antenna design; this is a well-known design choice in antenna arrays.
In Claims 10 and 15, the same rejections apply.
In Claim 21, the same rejection applies.
Regarding claim 3, KR discloses display device of claim 2, wherein the first to third antennas each have the same shape. KR teaches dipole antenna units arranged in parallel and identical antenna structures used in array. KR explicitly teaches identical antenna shapes.
Motivation in claim 1 applies.
In Claims 11 and 16, the same rejections apply.
Regarding claim 4, Young discloses the display device of claim 3, wherein the shape of the first to third antennas is different from a shape of the second receiving antenna. Young discloses different antenna devices with different radiation directions, and different structures ([0009]-[0023]: mesh vs solid, vertical vs horizontal). It would have been obvious to vary antenna shape to support different radiation characteristics and to reduce interference; it is standard RF optimization.
In Claims 12 and 17, the same rejections apply.
Regarding claim 5, Young discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein the first to third antennas are dipole antennas, and the second receiving antenna is a monopole antenna. Young explicitly discloses dipole, monopole, patch antennas ([0033]); it was directly suggested obvious selection from known antenna types.
In Claim 18, the same rejection applies.
Regarding claim 6, Young discloses the display device of claim 5, wherein the first to third antennas have an asymmetric shape when viewed on a plane of the display panel. Examiner’s note that it is taught by general knowledge that antenna arms of different lengths are commonly used to tune resonance frequency, and improve bandwidth. Because it would have been obvious to modify antenna geometry to be asymmetric for impedance matching and frequency tuning for routine RF design optimization.
In Claim 13, the same rejection applies.
In Claim 20, a symmetric shape when viewed on a plane of the display panel is a design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Young discloses display device of claim 6, wherein each of the first to third antennas includes: a first antenna electrode extended from a feed line; a second antenna electrode extended in a first side direction from the first antenna electrode, having a first length in the first side direction; and a third antenna electrode extended from the second antenna electrode in an opposite side direction to the first side direction, having a second length in the opposite side direction different from the first length. Examiner notes it is taught by general knowledge that antenna elements with multiple arms, branched structures, and feed extensions are standard in dipole variants and folded antennas. It would have been obvious to implement multiple electrode extensions to control current distribution and to tune antenna performance.
Regarding claim 8, Young discloses display device of claim 7, wherein a first ground conductive pattern connected to the second antenna electrode is disposed in the first side direction from the feeding line, the first ground pattern including a first ground etched area forming a first elongated opening disposed in parallel with the feeding line, and a second ground pattern connected to the third antenna electrode is disposed in the opposite side direction from the feeding line, the second ground pattern including a second ground etched area forming a second elongated opening disposed in parallel with the feeding line ([0115], [0118]: elongated lateral surface, [0056], [0057]: conductive structures around antenna, [0075]: feeding lines, [0053]-[0055]: ground pad). It is also general RF knowledge ground slots / etched openings used for impedance tuning and radiation control. It would have been obvious to include etched ground openings to optimize antenna performance and to reduce noise and interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/MONICA C KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
4/29/2026
Prosecution Insights