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 with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “Under the premise of Wu and Mitchell fail to disclose the features about "two contacting portions connected to the first radiation portion and the second radiation portion, and spaced apart from each other", "the gap is divided into a first slot and a second slot by the two contacting portions", and "the gap has a first width, any one of the two contacting portions has a second width, and the second width is larger than the first width" in the amended claims 1, 10 and any teaching of disposing contacting portions to connect the first radiation portion and the second radiation portion which are separating apart by one gap. It wouldn't have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the antenna unit taught in Wu to achieve the antenna structure, the antenna array and the antenna module in the amended claims 1, 10.
Moreover, none of Onaka, Tchoffo Talom and Lu discloses the features of "two contacting portions connected to the first radiation portion and the second radiation portion, and spaced apart from each other", "the gap is divided into a first slot and a second slot by the two contacting portions", and "the gap has a first width, any one of the two contacting portions has a second width, and the second width is larger than the first width". Therefore, the amended claims 1, 10 should be patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the secondary reference Onaka (US-20190229421-A1) discloses wherein the gap has a first width (“gap”, fig. 5), any one of the two contacting portions (14) has a second width, and the second width is larger than the first width (fig. 5) as explained below.
The arguments are moot because claims 1 and 10 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al, 20250023240 in view of Onaka et al, US-20190229421-A1 as explained below.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al, 20250023240 (hereinafter Wu) in view of Onaka et al, US-20190229421-A1 (hereinafter Onaka).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses the following:
an antenna structure, comprising:
an antenna unit (30-32, fig. 2), comprising:
a first radiation portion (fig. 2 below);
a second radiation portion (30) surrounding the first radiation portion, wherein there is a gap (31, 32) between the first radiation portion and the second radiation portion; and
two contacting portions (fig. 2) connected to the first radiation portion and the second radiation portion (30), and spaced apart from each other;
at least one feeding portion (41, 42) connected to the second radiation portion (30); and
a substrate (10, fig. 1);
wherein the gap is divided into a first slot (31) and a second slot (32) by the two contacting portions (fig. 2).
Wu does not disclose wherein the antenna unit and the at least one feeding portion are respectively disposed on two opposite surfaces of the substrate and wherein the gap has a first width, any one of the two contacting portions has a second width, and the second width is larger than the first width.
Onaka suggests wherein the antenna unit (11, 12, fig. 3) and the at least one feeding portion (15, 3) are respectively disposed on two opposite surfaces of the substrate (20) and wherein the gap has a first width (“gap”, fig. 5), any one of the two contacting portions (14) has a second width, and the second width is larger than the first width (fig. 5).
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 antenna unit and the at least one feeding portion taught in Wu to be disposed on two opposite surfaces of the substrate as suggested in Onaka as claimed for the purpose of separating the feeding portion and the antenna unit in order to reduce the interference, reducing the footprint of the antenna structure and providing protection to the connection between the antenna unit and the feeding portion for being disposed inside the substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wu does not disclose the antenna structure of claim 1, further comprising:
a coupling portion disposed on the substrate, wherein there is an interval between the coupling portion and the second radiation portion.
Onaka suggests the antenna structure further comprising:
a coupling portion (70, fig. 11A, 11B) disposed on the substrate (20), wherein there is an interval between the coupling portion (70) and the second radiation portion (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coupling portion as suggested in Onaka to the antenna structure taught in Wu as claimed for the purpose of designing an antenna structure being able to support a plurality of frequency bands (Onaka, para [0137]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses wherein the antenna structure has a first resonant frequency band and a second resonant frequency band (para [0060]).
Although Wu does not explicitly disclose the first resonant frequency band is corresponding to the first radiation portion, and the second resonant frequency band is corresponding to the second radiation portion, the antenna structure in Wu has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
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 resonant frequency bands taught in Wu and Onaka to be corresponding to the first and second radiation portions as claimed for the purpose of providing an antenna structure operating in two resonant frequency bands while not changing the antenna’s size.
Regarding claim 4, although Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first resonant frequency band is 30 GHz, and the second resonant frequency band is 20 GHz, Wu discloses the antenna structure operates at different frequencies (para [0075]: 26.22-27.43 GHz with a center frequency of 27 GHz and 38.10-39.63 GHz with a center frequency of 38.6 GHz, respectively and 26.13-27.69 GHz with a center frequency of 27.2 GHz and 28.29-28.84 GHz with a center frequencies of 28.6 GHz) and the length of the first and second slot can be used to adjust the low and high frequencies (para [0061]).
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 resonant frequency bands taught in Wu and Onaka to be 30 GHz and 20 GHz as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired operating frequencies depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 5, although Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein a width of the first radiation portion is corresponding to a quarter of a wavelength of the first resonant frequency band, and a width of the second radiation portion is corresponding to a quarter of a wavelength of the second resonant frequency band, Wu discloses the lengths of the slots 31, 32 are much larger than the width which will affect the width of first radiation portion (intermediate region, para [0061]-[0062]) and adjusting the dimensions of the second radiation portion 30, the lengths of the slots 31, 32 would affect the operating frequency band, center frequency and bandwidth (para [0072]).
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 width of the first and second radiation portions of the antenna structure taught by Wu and Onaka to be a quarter of a wavelength of the first and second resonant frequency bands as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired operating frequency band, center frequency and bandwidth (Wu, para [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses wherein both of the first radiation portion and the second radiation portion are regular quadrilateral, the first radiation portion has four endpoints (fig. 2).
Although Wu does not explicitly a distance between one of the two contacting portions and one of the four endpoints is larger than or equal to 0.53 mm and less than or equal to 0.93 mm, and another distance between another one of the two contacting portions and another one of the four endpoints is larger than or equal to 1.25 mm and less than or equal to 1.65 mm, Wu discloses adjusting the lengths of the slots 31, 32, which means the distance from one of the two contacting portions and one of the four endpoints, would affect the operating frequency band, center frequency and bandwidth (para [0072]).
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 from one of the two contacting portions and one of the four endpoints of the antenna structure taught by Wu and Onaka to be larger than or equal to 0.53 mm and less than or equal to 0.93 mm and larger than or equal to 1.25 mm and less than or equal to 1.65 mm as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired operating frequency band, center frequency and bandwidth (Wu, para [0072]).
Regarding claim 7, although Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first width is larger than or equal to 0.07 mm, and less than or equal to 0.15 mm, Wu discloses the lengths of the gap/slots 31, 32 are much larger than the width (para [0061]) and adjusting the dimensions of the lengths of the gap/slots 31, 32 would affect the operating frequency band, center frequency and bandwidth (para [0072]).
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 width of the gap of the antenna structure taught by Wu and Onaka to be larger than or equal to 0.07 mm, and less than or equal to 0.15 mm as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired operating frequency band, center frequency and bandwidth (Wu, para [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, although Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the second width is larger than 0.08 mm, and less than or equal to 0.3 mm, Wu discloses adjusting the dimensions of the lengths of the gap/slots 31, 32, which would affect the width of the contacting portions, would affect the operating frequency band, center frequency and bandwidth (para [0072]).
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 width of any one of the two contacting portions of the antenna structure taught by Wu and Onaka to be larger than 0.08 mm, and less than or equal to 0.3 mm as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired operating frequency band, center frequency and bandwidth (Wu, para [0072]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Onaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tchoffo Talom et al, US-20150188231-A1 (hereinafter Tchoffo Talom).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses an antenna array, comprising: a plurality of the antenna structures of claim 1, each of the antenna structures further comprising a center point (figs. 18-20).
The combination of Wu and Onaka does not disclose wherein there is a first line between the center point of one of the antenna structures and another center point of another one of the antenna structures adjacent thereto, there is a second line between the center point of the one of the antenna structures and further another center point of further another one of the antenna structures adjacent thereto, an angle is formed between the first line and the second line, and the angle is 60 degrees.
Tchoffo Talom suggests wherein there is a first line between the center point of one of the antenna structures (12Tx, fig. 9 below) and another center point of another one of the antenna structures adjacent thereto, there is a second line between the center point of the one of the antenna structures and further another center point of further another one of the antenna structures adjacent thereto (fig. 9).
Although Tchoffo Talom does not explicitly disclose an angle is formed between the first line and the second line, and the angle is 60 degrees, 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 angle formed between the first line and the second line of the antenna structure taught in Wu, Onaka and Tchoffo Talom to be 60 degree as claimed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to reduce the space required to accommodate a plurality of the antenna structures while still avoiding the interference between the antenna structures.
PNG
media_image2.png
238
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, 20250023240 in view of Onaka, US-20190229421-A1, and further in view of Lu, CN-106229686-A.
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses the following:
an antenna module, comprising:
an antenna structure, comprising:
an antenna unit (30-32, fig. 2), comprising:
a first radiation portion (fig. 2 above);
a second radiation portion (30) surrounding the first radiation portion, wherein there is a gap (31, 32) between the first radiation portion and the second radiation portion; and
two contacting portions (fig. 2) connected to the first radiation portion and the second radiation portion (30), and spaced apart from each other;
two feeding portions (41, 42) connected to the second radiation portion (30); and
a substrate (10, fig. 1), wherein the antenna unit is disposed on a surface of the substrate (figs. 1-2);
wherein the gap is divided into a first slot (31) and a second slot (32) by the two contacting portions (fig. 2).
Wu does not disclose the two feeding portions are disposed on another surface of the substrate; and a phase distributor connected to the two feeding portions, configured to transform two input signals into two feeding signals and inputted the two feeding signals to the two feeding portions, wherein a phase difference is between the two feeding signals, wherein the gap has a first width, any one of the two contacting portions has a second width, and the second width is larger than the first width.
Onaka suggests wherein the feeding portion (15, 3, fig. 3) are disposed on another surface of the substrate (20) and wherein the gap has a first width (“gap”, fig. 5), any one of the two contacting portions (14) has a second width, and the second width is larger than the first width (fig. 5).
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 antenna unit and the at least one feeding portion taught in Wu to be disposed on two opposite surfaces of the substrate as suggested in Onaka as claimed for the purpose of separating the feeding portion and the antenna unit in order to reduce the interference, reducing the footprint of the antenna structure and providing protection to the connection between the antenna unit and the feeding portion for being disposed inside the substrate.
Although Wu does not disclose a phase distributor connected to the two feeding portions, configured to transform two input signals into two feeding signals and inputted the two feeding signals to the two feeding portions, wherein a phase difference is between the two feeding signals, Wu discloses there are two feeding signals (port 1, port 2, fig. 2) and the two feeding signals are inputs to the two feeding portions (41, 42).
Lu suggests a phase distributor (11, fig. 1) connected to the two feeding portions (401, 402), configured to transform two input signals (13, 18) into two feeding signals (16, 17) and inputted the two feeding signals to the two feeding portions (401, 402), wherein a phase difference is between the two feeding signals (page 5, para 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a phase distributor as suggested in Lu to the antenna module taught in Wu and Onaka as claimed for the purpose of providing circularly polarized electromagnetic energy to the antenna module in order to reduce interference and multipath reflection (Lu, page 2, Background Technology Section).
Citation of Pertinent Art
Chen et al, CN-106654588-A, fig. 1 could read on claim 1
Zhou et al, CN-202282450-U, fig. 5 could read on claim 1
Fujishima et al, US-20060164309-A1, fig. 1: width of contacting portion is larger than width of the gap
Ren et al, US-20260074429-A1, fig. 2: width of contacting portion is larger than width of the gap
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