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 filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On Page 9, Applicant argues that “Fink fails to teach or suggest a composite radiator that provides an almost omnidirectional pattern as recited in claims 1 and 21”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language of currently amended claims 1 & 21 recite in part “an almost omnidirectional radiation pattern” which in view of the relative term “almost”, does not require an omnidirectional radiation pattern. Fink et al. states “The present invention seeks to provide an antenna that overcomes or reduces the aforementioned problems and takes into account the aforementioned considerations” (Col. 1 L 56-58) in the background section which would include the “omnidirectional antenna design” discussed in the previous section. Additionally, the radiation direction 44 shown in Fig. 17 is disclosed as “the principal direction of radiation” (Col. 14 L. 30) which implies a primary direction of radiation pattern, not the only radiation pattern of the antenna 40 and the claim language of “an almost omnidirectional radiation pattern” does not distinguish over the radiation pattern of the composite radiator / antenna of Fink et al. as shown in the rejection below. Thus the rejection stands. Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fink et al. US Patent 7,126,553.
Regarding Claim 1, Fink et al. teaches a wearable device (worn Col. 7 L. 61), comprising:
a receiver element (Fig. 17 annotated below Col. 14 L. 26);
a first wave transmission structure (Fig. 17 annotated below Col. 14 L. 26), disposed adjacent to the receiver element (Fig. 17 annotated below);
a second wave transmission structure (Fig. 17 annotated below Col. 14 L. 26), disposed adjacent to the receiver element, wherein the receiver element is positioned between the first wave transmission structure and the second wave transmission structure (Fig. 17 annotated below);
an impedance converter (Fig. 17 annotated below Col. 14 L. 41), disposed adjacent to the first wave transmission structure (Fig. 17 annotated below);
a transmitter element (Fig. 17 annotated below Col. 14 L. 27), disposed adjacent to the impedance converter, wherein the impedance converter is positioned between the first wave transmission structure and the transmitter element; and
a flexible wearable layer, carrying the receiver element, the first wave transmission structure, the second wave transmission structure, the impedance converter, and the transmitter element (collapsible membrane 43 Fig. 17 Col. 14 L. 39);
wherein a composite radiator is formed by the first wave transmission structure, the second wave transmission structure, and the transmitter element (antenna 40 Fig. 17 Col. 14 L. 25);
wherein when the receiver element receives a wireless signal from a communication device (“base station” Col. 1 L 42), the composite radiator provides an almost omnidirectional radiation pattern (“omnidirectional antenna design” Col. 1 L 48).
PNG
media_image1.png
745
1152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Fink et al. teaches a communication method (Abstract, Fig. 17), comprising the steps of:
providing a receiver element (Fig. 17 annotated above Col. 14 L. 26), a first wave transmission structure (Fig. 17 annotated above Col. 14 L. 26), a second wave transmission structure (Fig. 17 annotated above Col. 14 L. 26), an impedance converter (Fig. 17 annotated above Col. 14 L. 41), and a transmitter element (Fig. 17 annotated above Col. 14 L. 27), wherein the first wave transmission structure and the second wave transmission structure are adjacent to the receiver element (Fig. 17 annotated above), wherein the receiver element is positioned between the first wave transmission structure and the second wave transmission structure (Fig. 17 annotated above), wherein the first wave transmission structure and the transmitter element are adjacent to the impedance converter (Fig. 17 annotated above), and wherein the impedance converter is positioned between the first wave transmission structure and the transmitter element (Fig. 17 annotated above);
carrying the receiver element, the first wave transmission structure, the second wave transmission structure, the impedance converter, and the transmitter element by a flexible wearable layer (collapsible membrane 43 Fig. 17 Col. 14 L. 39);
forming a composite radiator by the first wave transmission structure, the second wave transmission structure, and the transmitter element (antenna 40 Fig. 17 Col. 14 L. 25); and
wherein when the receiver element receives a wireless signal from a communication device (“base station” Col. 1 L 42), the composite radiator provides an almost omnidirectional radiation pattern (“omnidirectional antenna design” Col. 1 L 48).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al. US Patent 7,126,553 and Cheng et al. US Patent Application Publication 2024/0030615.
Regarding Claim 3, Fink et al. teaches the wearable device as claimed in claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Fink et al. is silent on wherein the communication device is a controller, a tracker, a watch, an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), an environmental sensor, a temperature sensor, or an HMD (Head Mounted Display).
However, Cheng et al. teaches “HMD (Head Mounted Display), smart glasses, or a smart watch” Par. 0023.
In this particular case, providing the communication device as a Head Mounted Display or watch is common and well known in the art as evident by Cheng et al. to provide wireless communications between the two devices.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the communication device of Fink et al. to be a Head Mounted Display or a watch based on the teachings of Cheng et al. in order to provide wireless communications between the two devices.
Claims 4-7, 10, 11, 13, 14 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al. US Patent 7,126,553 and Li et al. US Patent Application Publication 2013/0257674.
Regarding Claim 4, Fink et al. teaches the wearable device as claimed in claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Fink et al. is silent on wherein the wearable device covers an operational frequency band from 1GHz to 10GHz.
However, Li et al. teaches wherein the wearable device covers an operational frequency band from 1GHz to 10GHz (2400-2484 MHz Par. 0005-0008, 0077).
In this particular case, providing wireless communications in a frequency band from 1GHz to 10GHz like 2400-2484 MHz is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Li et al. in order to operate in a wireless local area network (WLAN) (Par. 0005-0008, 0077).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the operational frequency band of Fink et al. to be from 1GHz to 10GHz based on the teachings of Li et al. in order to operate in a wireless local area network (WLAN).
Regarding Claim 5, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein the receiver element comprises: a plurality of main metal elements, disposed adjacent to each other (Fig. 17 annotated above).
Fink et al. is silent on wherein each of the main metal elements substantially has a large L-shape.
However, Li et al. teaches antenna elements having an L-shape (Figs. 1-5A).
In this particular case, providing antenna elements having an L-shape is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Li et al. due to their radiation pattern (Par. 0005, 0048, 0125).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure each of the main metal elements of Fink et al. to substantially have a large L-shape based on the teachings of Li et al. as a result effect due to their radiation pattern.
Regarding Claim 6, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein a length of each of the main metal elements is from 0.2 to 0.6 wavelength of the operational frequency band (implied from resonant length of 0.34 wavelengths Col. 13 L 24).
Regarding Claim 7, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein a distance between any two adjacent main metal elements is from 0.1 to 0.5 wavelength of the operational frequency band (quarter wavelength Col. 6 L 31-34).
Regarding Claim 10, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein the first wave transmission structure comprises: a plurality of first metal elements, arranged parallel to each other, wherein each of the first metal elements substantially has a straight-line shape (Fig. 17 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 11, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein a length of each of the first metal elements is from 0.2 to 0.6 wavelength of the operational frequency band (implied from resonant length of 0.34 wavelengths Col. 13 L 24).
Regarding Claim 13, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein the second wave transmission structure comprises: a plurality of second metal elements, arranged parallel to each other, wherein each of the second metal elements substantially has a straight-line shape (Fig. 17 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 14, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein a length of each of the second metal elements is from 0.2 to 0.6 wavelength of the operational frequency band (implied from resonant length of 0.34 wavelengths Col. 13 L 24).
Regarding Claim 16, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein the impedance converter comprises: a conversion metal element, wherein the conversion metal element substantially has a U-shape (U shape of balun seen in 103 across slot 106 in Fig. 22).
Regarding Claim 17, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein a length of the conversion metal element is from 0.2 to 0.6 wavelength of the operational frequency band (implied from resonant length of 0.34 wavelengths Col. 13 L 24).
Regarding Claim 18, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein the transmitter element comprises: a first radiation metal element; and a second radiation metal element (pair of elements 42 Fig. 17 annotated above), disposed adjacent to the first radiation metal element, wherein the first radiation metal element and the second radiation metal element are symmetrical (Fig. 17 annotated above).
Regarding Claim 19, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein each of the first radiation metal element and the second radiation metal element substantially has a bending shape (implied from Figs. 12, 16 as well as Fig. 17 when collapsible membrane 43 is not flat).
Regarding Claim 20, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein a length of each of the first radiation metal element and the second radiation metal element is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the operational frequency band (0.25 wavelength for each arm of the dipole is implicit since a dipole is half wavelength).
Claims 12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al. US Patent 7,126,553 and Li et al. US Patent Application Publication 2013/0257674 as applied to claims 10, 13 above, and further in view of Contopanagos et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0393729.
Regarding Claim 12, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein a distance between any two adjacent first metal elements (Multiple predetermined distances exist Col. 6 L 31-34).
Fink et al. is silent on wherein a distance between any two adjacent first metal elements is from 0.1 to 0.2 wavelength of the operational frequency band.
However, Contopanagos et al. teaches setting a distance between elements to 0.1 wavelength of a frequency (Par. 0159).
In this particular case, setting a distance between any two adjacent first metal elements is from 0.1 to 0.2 wavelength of the operational frequency band is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Contopanagos et al. in order to generate a null in certain regions (Par. 0159).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a distance between any two adjacent first metal elements of Fink et al. to be from 0.1 to 0.2 wavelength of the operational frequency band based on the teachings of Contopanagos et al. as a result effect in order to generate a null in certain regions.
Regarding Claim 15, Fink et al. as modified teaches wherein a distance between any two adjacent second metal elements (Multiple predetermined distances exist Col. 6 L 31-34).
Fink et al. is silent on wherein a distance between any two adjacent second metal elements is from 0.1 to 0.2 wavelength of the operational frequency band.
However, Contopanagos et al. teaches setting a distance between elements to 0.1 wavelength of a frequency (Par. 0159).
In this particular case, setting a distance between any two adjacent second metal elements is from 0.1 to 0.2 wavelength of the operational frequency band is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Contopanagos et al. in order to generate a null in certain regions (Par. 0159).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a distance between any two adjacent second metal elements of Fink et al. to be from 0.1 to 0.2 wavelength of the operational frequency band based on the teachings of Contopanagos et al. as a result effect in order to generate a null in certain regions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 & 9 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 8, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitations “wherein the receiver element further comprises: a plurality of auxiliary metal elements, disposed adjacent to each other, wherein each of the auxiliary metal elements substantially has a small L-shape” as required by the claim. Claim 9 depends therefrom.
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 MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights