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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends in page 10:
With respect to the feature of "wherein a second end of the third radiator is an open end, the Office Action relies on the portion of Son's third conductive pattern 530 "adjacent to 550 in Fig. 3" for this limitation. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Son discloses that a fourth feeding part 641 may be electrically connected to a tenth location P10 of the third conductive pattern 530 (Son, ¶ [0081]). Son is silent regarding the second end of the third conductive pattern 530 being an open end. To the contrary, Son discloses that the fourth feeding part 641 is connected to the third conductive pattern 530, and therefore the end of the third conductive pattern 530 opposite the first conductive pattern 510 is not an open end as recited in claim 21. Therefore, Son fails to disclose or teach the above feature.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, since third radiator 530 clearly has an open end “O”, as depicted in Son’s Fig. 3, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further contends in page 11:
Son is silent regarding a ground plane that is disposed with a gap between the ground plane and each of the first radiator, the second radiator, and the third radiator. Son fails to disclose or teach this spatial relationship between a ground plane and three radiators as recited in claim 21. Therefore, Son fails to disclose or teach the above feature.
…
Son discloses ground parts 632, 612, and 642 that are "electrically connected" to specified locations on the conductive patterns (Son, " [0077]-[0078]). Son is silent regarding grounding members each having a first end coupled to a respective radiator at a respective grounding point and a second end coupled to a ground plane. The characterization of Son's ground parts as "(vertical)" grounding members with identifiable first and second ends is not found in Son's disclosure. Therefore, Son fails to disclose or teach the above feature.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Son discloses in ¶ 65, “the electronic device 101 may include at least one ground structure (G) to connect the first conductive pattern 510, the second conductive pattern 520, the third conductive pattern 530, the fourth conductive pattern 540, and/or the fifth conductive pattern 550 to a ground layer.” In Figs. 3-5 of Son, a PCB 560 is depicted, having multiple ground structures G where radiators 510-530 are grounded. A skilled artisan would appreciate that such PCBs inherently have “a ground plane” or a ground layer, absent which grounding of the radiators cannot occur, thereby rendering the radiators inefficient or inoperable. Further, spatial relationship between the PCB ground plane and the three radiators are clearly present in Figs. 3-4. See, e.g., gaps A-C in Fig. 3 reproduced above.
Regarding grounding members, in Fig. 4 of Son, a vertical grounding member is present at location P6, connecting radiator 520 between first end 1 and second end 2, as depicted in Fig. 4 reproduced below. Rest of the grounding members, i.e., at locations P3 and P7, clearly have grounding members. It should be noted that claims 21 and 35 do NOT recite any shape or geometric specifics of the grounding members.
PNG
media_image2.png
562
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant lastly contends:
Son discloses that its first conductive pattern 510-which the Examiner maps as the "second radiator"-has its own first feeding part 611 at location P1, second feeding part 621 at location P2, and switch 613 at location P5 (Son, ¶¶ [0072]-[0076]). Son is silent regarding a configuration in which a feed unit is coupled to the first radiator or the first grounding member at a feed point, where the second radiator is coupled to the first radiator through the first slot. Therefore, Son fails to disclose or teach the above feature.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Son discloses in ¶ 90, “The first insulating part 680 interposed between the first conductive pattern 510 and the second conductive pattern 520 may be a partition gap. The resonant frequency within the second frequency band that is MB/HB may be formed between the first feeding part 611 connected to the first location P1 of the first conductive pattern 510 and the third ground part 632 connected to the sixth location P6 of the second conductive pattern 520 by the coupling caused by the capacitance of the partition gap.” Son additionally discloses in ¶ 91, “The second insulating part 690 interposed between the first conductive pattern 510 and the third conductive pattern 530 may be a partition gap. A resonant frequency within the fourth frequency band including the Wi-Fi2 signal may be formed between the second feeding part 621 connected to the second location P2 of the first conductive pattern 510 and the fourth ground part 642 connected to the seventh location P7 of the third conductive pattern 530 by coupling caused by the capacitance of the partition gap.” Hence, the aforementioned paras. clearly satisfy the broad language “a feed unit coupled to the first radiator [or the first grounding member] at a feed point of the first radiator [or the first grounding member]”. They also satisfy the couplings through the first and second slots as now recited in last two lines of claims 21 and 35.
Nevertheless, gist of the invention appears to be, inter alia, employing passive T-shaped radiator stubs 220 and 230, that shorted to a ground plane 201 of a mobile phone or a notebook computer, for multiple frequency bands of operation, particularly in 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 6 GHz WiFi bands. See, e.g., Figs. 2-11, ¶ 108 and ¶ 127 of the printed publication.
However, merely pieces of the invention have been claimed.
Absent specific structural and functional limitations recited to clearly discern the invention, prior art reads well on the breadth of claims 21 and 35.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 28, 29, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ (a)(2) as being anticipated by “Son” (US 20210135351).
Claims 21 and 35: Son discloses an electronic device (Fig. 3), comprising:
an antenna structure (501, 560), comprising:
a first radiator 520 having a first grounding point P6 (Fig. 4);
a second radiator 510, a first slot 680 being formed between a first end of the first radiator and a first end of the second radiator (¶ 62), the second radiator having a second grounding point P3;
a third radiator 530, a second slot 690 being formed between a second end of the second radiator and a first end of the third radiator (¶ 62), wherein a second end of the third radiator is an open end (adjacent to 550 in Fig. 3), and the third radiator comprises a third grounding point P7 (Fig. 4);
a ground plane 560 (¶ 65) disposed with a gap between the ground plane and each of the first radiator, the second radiator, and the third radiator (see Figs. 3 and 5, said gap formed by vertical shorting elements connected to 632, 612 and 642 between respective radiators and ground plane 560);
a first (vertical) grounding member, wherein a first (top) end of the first grounding member is coupled to the first radiator at the first grounding point, and a second (bottom) end of the first grounding member is coupled to the ground plane (at 632);
a second (vertical) grounding member, wherein a first (top) end of the second grounding member is coupled to the second radiator at the second grounding point, and a second (bottom) end of the second grounding member is coupled to the ground plane (at 612);
a third (vertical) grounding member, wherein a first (top) end of the third grounding member is coupled to the third radiator at the third grounding point, and a (bottom) second end of the third grounding member is coupled to the ground plane (at 642); and
a feed unit 631 coupled to the first radiator 520 at a feed point P8 of the first radiator (¶ 128), wherein
the second radiator is coupled to the first radiator through the first slot, and the third radiator is coupled to the second radiator through the second slot (see ¶¶ 90-91).
Claim 28: Son teaches the antenna structure according to claim 21, further comprising:
a fourth radiator 540 (Fig. 4) having a fourth grounding point P11 wherein the first grounding point is disposed between the first end of the first radiator and a second end of the first radiator, wherein a third slot (unlabeled) is formed between a first end of the fourth radiator and the second end of the first radiator (see Fig. 4);
a second end of the fourth radiator is an open end (see Fig. 3); and
a fourth (vertical) grounding member, wherein a first end of the fourth grounding member is coupled to the fourth radiator at the fourth grounding point, and a second end of the fourth grounding member is coupled to the ground plane (at 652).
Claim 29: Son teaches the antenna structure according to claim 21, wherein the first radiator further comprises a second end, the first grounding point is disposed between the first end of the first radiator and the second end of the first radiator, and a distance from the second end of the first radiator to the first grounding point is different from a distance from the first end of the first radiator to the first grounding point (see Fig. 4).
Claim 32: Son teaches the antenna structure according to claim 21, wherein a projection of the first radiator on the ground plane and a projection of the second radiator on the ground plane partially overlap (see Fig. 3).
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 22, 26, 31, 33 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (cited above) in view of “Jo” (US 7079079).
Claim 22: Son fails to expressly teach wherein a distance d1 from the first end of the first radiator to the first grounding point, a distance d2 from the first end of the second radiator to the second grounding point, a distance d3 from the second end of the second radiator to the second grounding point, a distance d4 from the first end of the third radiator to the third grounding point, and a distance d5 from the second end of the third radiator to the third grounding point, satisfy d1×90%≤d2, d3, d4, and/or d5≤d1×110%.
However, 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 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Jo teaches “teaches "[i]t is known that antenna performance is dependent upon the size, shape and material composition of the antenna elements, the interaction between elements and the relationship between certain antenna physical parameters and the wavelength of the signal received or transmitted by the antenna. These physical and electrical characteristics determine several antenna operational parameters, including input impedance, gain, directivity, signal polarization, resonant frequency, bandwidth and radiation pattern." (Col. 1, second paragraph.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Son’s invention such that a distance d1 from the first end of the first radiator to the first grounding point, a distance d2 from the first end of the second radiator to the second grounding point, a distance d3 from the second end of the second radiator to the second grounding point, a distance d4 from the first end of the third radiator to the third grounding point, and a distance d5 from the second end of the third radiator to the third grounding point, satisfy d1×90%≤d2, d3, d4, and/or d5≤d1×110%, in order to obtain tuned antenna operational parameters.
Claims 26 and 40: Son discloses wherein the first radiator, the second radiator, and the third radiator are configured to jointly generate a first resonance, a second resonance, and a third resonance, a frequency of the first resonance is lower than a frequency of the second resonance (¶ 60).
Son fails to expressly teach the frequency of the second resonance is lower than a frequency of the third resonance.
However, Son teaches in ¶ 60, “In addition, the antenna structure 501 may transmit and receive signals belonging to a high-frequency band (e.g., a Wi-Fi2 frequency band or a 5G NR frequency band), using the first conductive pattern 510 and the third conductive pattern 530 of the conductive portion.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design Son’s antenna structure such that the frequency of the second resonance is lower than a frequency of the third resonance, in order to achieve communication diversity as desired.
Claim 31: Son fails to teach wherein a width of the first slot is less than or equal to 1 mm, and/or a width of the second slot is less than or equal to 1 mm.
However, 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 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Jo teaches “teaches "[i]t is known that antenna performance is dependent upon the size, shape and material composition of the antenna elements, the interaction between elements and the relationship between certain antenna physical parameters and the wavelength of the signal received or transmitted by the antenna. These physical and electrical characteristics determine several antenna operational parameters, including input impedance, gain, directivity, signal polarization, resonant frequency, bandwidth and radiation pattern." (Col. 1, second paragraph.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Son’s invention such that a width of the first slot is less than or equal to 1 mm, and/or a width of the second slot is less than or equal to 1 mm, in order to obtain tuned antenna operational parameters.
Claim 33: Son fails to expressly teach wherein a projection of the first radiator on the ground plane and a projection of the second radiator on the ground plane do not overlap.
However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Nevertheless, Jo teaches “teaches "[i]t is known that antenna performance is dependent upon the size, shape and material composition of the antenna elements, the interaction between elements and the relationship between certain antenna physical parameters and the wavelength of the signal received or transmitted by the antenna. These physical and electrical characteristics determine several antenna operational parameters, including input impedance, gain, directivity, signal polarization, resonant frequency, bandwidth and radiation pattern." (Col. 1, second paragraph.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Son’s invention such that a projection of the first radiator on the ground plane and a projection of the second radiator on the ground plane do not overlap, in order to obtain tuned antenna operational parameters.
Claim 39: Son fails to expressly teach wherein a distance d1 from the first end of the first radiator to the first grounding point, a distance d2 from the first end of the second radiator to the second grounding point, a distance d3 from the second end of the second radiator to the second grounding point, a distance d4 from the first end of the third radiator to the third grounding point, and a distance d5 from the second end of the third radiator to the third grounding point, satisfy at least one of d1×90%≤d2, d3, d4, or d5≤d1×110%.
However, 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 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Jo teaches “teaches "[i]t is known that antenna performance is dependent upon the size, shape and material composition of the antenna elements, the interaction between elements and the relationship between certain antenna physical parameters and the wavelength of the signal received or transmitted by the antenna. These physical and electrical characteristics determine several antenna operational parameters, including input impedance, gain, directivity, signal polarization, resonant frequency, bandwidth and radiation pattern." (Col. 1, second paragraph.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Son’s invention such that a distance d1 from the first end of the first radiator to the first grounding point, a distance d2 from the first end of the second radiator to the second grounding point, a distance d3 from the second end of the second radiator to the second grounding point, a distance d4 from the first end of the third radiator to the third grounding point, and a distance d5 from the second end of the third radiator to the third grounding point, satisfy at least one of d1×90%≤d2, d3, d4, or d5≤d1×110%, in order to obtain tuned antenna operational parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25, 27, 30, 34 and 36-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dong (US 12500356), Figs. 3-12, read(s) on claims 21 and 35
Kim (US 20160064820), Fig. 5
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights