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 1, 7-11, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono et al (US 10,008,780 B2), hereinafter Hososno, in view of Park et al (KR 10-2012-0053884A), hereinafter Park. (Both applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Hosono (Figure 1) teaches an antenna device transmitting a radio-frequency (RF) signal, the antenna device comprising:
a feed line (12a) extending in a first direction on one surface of a substrate;
a first antenna element (12b1) connected to the feed line in a second direction, substantially perpendicular to the first direction;
a second antenna element (12b2) connected to the feed line, spaced apart from the first antenna element at a predetermined interval, and extending in a third direction, substantially perpendicular to the first direction and opposite to the second direction.
Hosono does not further teaches that the feed line comprises a first connection portion connected to the first antenna element, a second connection portion connected to the second antenna element, and a first intermediate portion between the first connection portion and the second connection portion, and each of the first connection portion and the second connection portion has a first width, and the first intermediate portion has a second width smaller than the first width.
Park (Figure 2) teaches an antenna device transmitting an RF signal having a feed line (120) comprises a first connection portion (131a) connected to a first antenna element (111), a second connection portion (132a) connected to the second antenna element (112), and a first intermediate portion (131) between the first connection portion (131a) and the second connection portion (132a), and each of the first connection portion (131a) and the second connection portion (132a) has a first width, and the first intermediate portion (131) has a second width smaller than the first width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedline of Hosono to include a first connection portion connected to the first antenna element, a second connection portion connected to the second antenna element, and a first intermediate portion between the first connection portion and the second connection portion, and each of the first connection portion and the second connection portion has a first width, and the first intermediate portion has a second width smaller than the first width, as taught by Park, doing so would optimized impedance matching which maximizes power transfer and reduces signal reflections for optimum system performance.
Neither Hosono nor Park mentions a communication circuit configured to transmit the RF signal of a predetermined frequency band through the first antenna element and the second antenna element by feeding power to one end of the feed line.
However, it would have been inherent for the antenna of Hosono and/or Park to include a communication circuit configured to transmit the RF signal of a predetermined frequency band through the first antenna element and the second antenna element by feeding power to one end of the feed line in order to allow the device to communicate or send data to other devices.
Regarding claim 7, Hosono in view of Park teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, and Hosono (Figure 1) further teaches a third antenna element (12b3) spaced apart from the second antenna element (12b2) by the predetermined interval and connected to the feed line in the second direction and Park teaches a third connection portion (133a) connected to the third antenna element (133), and the third connection portion has the first width.
Regarding claim 8, Hosono in view of Park teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except explicitly mention that the predetermined interval is substantially same as half a wavelength of the RF signal.
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 interval between antenna elements to be half a wavelength of the RF signal in order to allow the antenna device to achieve high directivity and a narrow, focused beamwidth.
Regarding claim 9, Hosono in view of Park teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, except explicitly mention that the predetermined frequency band comprises a frequency band ranging from 76 GHz to 81 GHz. 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 predetermined frequency band to comprise a frequency band ranging from 76 GHz to 81 GHz, 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 claims 10 and 20, Hosono and Park teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 1 and 16, respectively, except explicitly mention that the feed line further comprises a termination extension extending from another end of the feed line by a predetermined extension length, and the termination extension is connected to ground. However, 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 feed line to further comprise a termination extension extending from another end of the feed line by a predetermined extension length, and the termination extension is connected to ground, doing so provide static and ESD protection and reduces common-mode RF currents and interference.
Regarding claim 11, Hosono (Figure 1) teaches an antenna structure transmitting a radio-frequency (RF) signal, the antenna structure comprising:
a feed line 12a extending in a first direction on one surface of a printed circuit board; and
a plurality of antenna elements (12b1, 12b2 and 12b3) alternately connected to the feed line at predetermined intervals in a second direction and a third direction, substantially perpendicular to the first direction.
Hosono does not explicitly teach that the feed line comprises a plurality of connection portions, to which the plurality of antenna elements are respectively connected, and portions excluding the plurality of connection portions, and each of the plurality of connection portions has a first width, and each of the portions excluding the plurality of connection portions has a second width smaller than the first width.
Park (Figure 2) teaches an antenna device transmitting an RF signal having a feed line 120 comprises a plurality of connection portions (131a, 132a and 133a), to which a plurality of antenna elements (111, 112 and 113) are respectively connected, and portions (131, 132 and 133), and each of the plurality of connection portions has a first width, and each of the portions excluding the plurality of connection portions has a second width smaller than the first width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedline of Hosono to include a plurality of connection portions, to which the plurality of antenna elements are respectively connected, and portions excluding the plurality of connection portions, and each of the plurality of connection portions has a first width, and each of the portions excluding the plurality of connection portions has a second width smaller than the first width, as taught by Park, doing so would optimized impedance matching which maximizes power transfer and reduces signal reflections for optimum system performance.
Regarding claim 16, Hosono (Figure 1) teaches an antenna device comprising:
a substrate (11);
a feed line (12a) extending in a first direction on one surface of the substrate;
a plurality of antenna elements (12b1, 12b2 and 12b3) connected to the feed line at predetermined intervals on one surface of the substrate.
Hosono does not explicitly teach that the feed line comprises a plurality of connection portions connected to the plurality of antenna elements, respectively, and portions excluding the plurality of connection portions, and each of the plurality of connection portions has a first width, and each of the portions excluding the plurality of connection portions has a second width different from the first width.
Park (Figure 2) teaches an antenna device transmitting an RF signal having a feed line 120 comprises a plurality of connection portions (131a, 132a and 133a) connected to a plurality of antenna elements (111, 112 and 113), respectively, and portions excluding the plurality of connection portions (131, 132 and 133), and each of the plurality of connection portions has a first width, and each of the portions excluding the plurality of connection portions has a second width different from the first width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedline of Hosono to include a plurality of connection portions connected to the plurality of antenna elements, respectively, and portions excluding the plurality of connection portions, and each of the plurality of connection portions has a first width, and each of the portions excluding the plurality of connection portions has a second width smaller than the first width, as taught by Park, doing so would optimized impedance matching which maximizes power transfer and reduces signal reflections for optimum system performance.
Neither Hosono nor Park explicitly mention a communication circuit configured to transmit a signal of a predetermined frequency band through the plurality of antenna elements by feeding power to one end of the feed line.
However, it would have been inherent for the antenna of Hosono and/or Park to include a communication circuit configured to transmit a signal of a predetermined frequency band through the plurality of antenna element by feeding power to one end of the feed line in order to enable the device to communicate or send data to other devices.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16, Hosono (Figure 1) teaches that the plurality of antenna elements (12b1, 12b2 and 12b3) are alternately connected in a second direction, substantially perpendicular to the first direction, and a third direction, opposite to the second direction. Furthermore, Park (Figure 2) teaches that the second width (width of 131, 132 and 133) is smaller than the first width (width of 131a, 132a and 133a).
Claims 2, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosono in view of Park, and further in view of Qiu et al (CN 101005156A), hereinafter Qiu.
Regarding claim 2, Hosono in view of Park teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, wherein the first extension 121 connected to the first connection portion 131a and extending in the second direction (Park Figure 2).
Neither Hosono nor Park teaches at least two first branches branching from the first extension.
Qiu (Figure 3) teaches an antenna element 90 comprising a first extension (vertical element) and at least two first branches (940 and 942) branching from the first extension.
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 device of Hosono/Park with at least two first branches branching from the first extension, as taught by Qiu, doing so would achieve increased signal gain, a narrower and more focused beamwidth, and impedance matching flexibility.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Hosono in view of Park teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 11 and 16, respectively, wherein a first antenna element (111), among the plurality of antenna elements (111, 112 and 113), connected to the feed line (120) in the second direction comprises a first extension (121) extending from the feed line in the second direction (Park Figure 2).
Neither Hosono nor Park teaches at least two first branches branching from the first extension.
Qiu (Figure 3) teaches an antenna element 90 comprising a first extension (vertical element) and at least two first branches (940 and 942) branching from the first extension.
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 device of Hosono/Park with at least two first branches branching from the first extension, as taught by Qiu, doing so would achieve increased signal gain, a narrower and more focused beamwidth, and impedance matching flexibility.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 13-15 and 19 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 3, neither Hosono nor Park further teaches a first parasitic element disposed at a location opposing the first antenna element with respect to the first connection portion and spaced apart from the feed line; and a second parasitic element disposed at a location opposing the second antenna element with respect to the second connection portion and spaced apart from the feed line.
Claims 4-6 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending, either directly or indirectly, on claim 3.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, as applied to claims 11 and 18, respectively, Hosono teaches a plurality of parasitic elements spaced apart from the feed line, wherein the plurality of parasitic elements are electromagnetically coupled to the feed line. However, there is no strong motivation to specifically place the parasitic elements spaced apart from the feed line at a location opposing each of the plurality of antenna elements with respect to the feed line.
Claims 14 and 15 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending, either directly or indirectly, on claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cui et al (CN 115621728A) discloses a plurality of antennas disposed on opposite sides of a feed line.
Wantanabe et al (JP 2008258852A) discloses a plurality of antennas disposed on opposite sides of a feed line.
Wang et al (CN 219959425U) discloses a plurality of antennas disposed on opposite sides of a feed line.
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