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 .
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.
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.
Claims 21, 24-27, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2012-227876A) in view of Puente Baliarda et al (US 2008/0018543 A1), hereinafter Baliarda.
Regarding claim 21, Goto (Figures 1, 2 and 4) teaches an antenna element 100 for a wireless communication device comprising:
a surface-mount device 10 including a dielectric substrate 11 and a conductive planar element 12 on a surface of the dielectric substrate, the surface-mount device being mounted on a surface of a printed circuit board 20 on a ground plane clearance 21 of the printed circuit board within the wireless communication device, the ground plane clearance including an area above and below the surface-mount device with an absence of a grounded conducting surface.
wherein the antenna element is configured to:
be connected to a radiofrequency system 41 (Figure 10) to provide impedance matching (via matching circuit 30) to the surface-mount device, and
be coupled to a ground plane layer 23 within the wireless communication device.
Goto does not explicitly mention that a maximum length of the surface-mount device is less than L/10, L being a free-space wavelength corresponding to a lowest frequency of operation of the antenna element.
Baliarda (para [0148]) teaches an antenna element for a wireless communication device wherein the antenna structure or surface-mount device is less than L/10, L being a free-space wavelength corresponding to a lowest frequency of operation of the antenna element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the a maximum length of the surface-mount device is less than L/10, L being a free-space wavelength corresponding to a lowest frequency of operation of the antenna element, as taught by Baliarda, doing so would make the antenna small enough to fit inside a compact electronic communication device and practical at low frequencies.
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 21, Goto (para [0037]) teaches that the dielectric substrate 11 comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: FR4, ceramic, and Rogers.
Regarding claim 25, as applied to claim 21, Goto (Figures 1 and 2, para [0008]) teaches that the antenna element is configured to transmit and receive radio waves in first and second separated frequency regions within the electromagnetic spectrum.
Regarding claim 26, as applied to claim 25, Goto (para [0037]) teaches that the dielectric substrate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: FR4, ceramic, and Rogers.
Regarding claim 27, as applied to claim 25, Goto (Figures 1 and 2, para [0008]) teaches that the surface-mount device 10 includes first and second conductive surfaces 12 and 13 on a largest surface of the dielectric substrate, wherein the first and second conductive surfaces are connected.
Regarding claim 30, as applied to claim 21, Baliarda (para [0148]) teaches that the maximum length of the surface-mount device is greater than L/22.
Regarding claim 31, as applied to claim 21, Baliarda (para [018]) teaches that the maximum length of the surface-mount device is less than L/12.
Regarding claim 35, as applied to claim 21, Goto (Figures 1 and 2) teaches that the surface-mount device 10 includes first and second conductive surfaces 12 and 13 on a same largest surface of the dielectric substrate, wherein the first and second conductive surfaces are not connected.
Regarding claim 37, as applied to claim 21, Baliarda (para [0023]) teaches that the antenna element operates at two separate frequency regions including two or more cellular frequency bands.
Regarding claim 38, Goto/Baliarda teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 37, except explicitly mention that at least one of the two or more cellular frequency bands includes the 698 MHz frequency. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the antenna structure such that at least one of the two or more cellular frequency bands includes the 698 MHz frequency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 40, as applied to claim 21, Goto (Figures 1 and 2) teaches that the dielectric substrate 11 of the surface-mount device 10 is between conductive planar element (top portion of 12) and the surface of the printed circuit board 20 on which the surface-mount device is mounted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 23 and 32 are allowed.
Claims 28, 29, 33-34, 36 and 39 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22, Goto in view of Baliarda teaches an antenna element for a wireless communication device comprising a surface-mount device including a dielectric substrate and a conductive planar element on a surface of the dielectric substrate, the surface-mount device being mounted on a ground plane clearance of a printed circuit board within the wireless communication device, the ground plane clearance including an area above and below the surface-mount device with an absence of a grounded conducting surface, wherein a maximum length of the surface-mount device is less than L/10, L being a free-space wavelength corresponding to a lowest frequency of operation of the antenna element, and, wherein the antenna element is configured to be connected to a radiofrequency system to provide impedance matching to the surface- mount device, and be coupled to a ground plane layer within the wireless communication device.
Neither Goto nor Baliarda further teaches that the surface-mount device having a lowest resonant frequency above a lowest frequency region of operation when disconnected from the radiofrequency system.
Claim 23 is allowed for at least the reason for depending on claim 22.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, neither Goto nor Baliarda further teaches that the first and second conductive surfaces are connected by a via hole.
Regarding claim 32, Goto in view of Baliarda teaches an antenna element for a wireless communication device comprising a surface-mount device including a dielectric substrate and a conductive planar element on a surface of the dielectric substrate, the surface-mount device being mounted on a ground plane clearance of a printed circuit board within the wireless communication device, the ground plane clearance including an area above and below the surface-mount device with an absence of a grounded conducting surface, wherein a maximum length of the surface-mount device is less than L/10, L being a free-space wavelength corresponding to a lowest frequency of operation of the antenna element, and wherein wherein the antenna element is configured to: be connected to a radiofrequency system to provide impedance matching to the surface- mount device, and be coupled to a ground plane layer within the wireless communication device.
Neither Goto nor Baliarda fails to further teach that a contour of the conductive planar element has a complexity factor F12 less than 1.5 and a complexity factor F32 less than 1.5.
Regarding claim 33, neither Got nor Baliarda teaches that a contour of the conductive planar element has a complexity factor F12 less than 1.3 and a complexity factor F32 less than 1.3.
Regarding claim 34, neither Goto nor Baliarda further teaches that a contour of the conductive planar element has a complexity factor F12 less than 1.3 and a complexity factor F32 less than 1.5.
Regarding claim 36, neither Goto nor Baliarda further teaches that the first and second conductive surfaces have a convex shape.
Regarding claim 39, neither Goto nor Baliarda further teaches that the antenna element operates at two separate frequency regions including four or more cellular frequency bands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Harper et al (CN104769771A) discloses a surface-mount device mounted on a surface of a printed circuit board.
Wu et al (DE 20 2016 102 916 U1) discloses a surface-mount device mounted on a surface of a printed circuit board.
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 HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights