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 .
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 1-5 & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0364817.
Regarding Claim 1, Ma et al. teaches a wireless device (Fig. 1) comprising:
at least two antennas (11, 12 Fig. 1 Par. 0034), the at least two antennas being arranged at intervals along a preset direction (Fig. 1); and
at least two groups of isolating members (two pairs of isolation elements 18 Fig. 1 Par. 0034), the at least two groups of isolating members being arranged between two adjacent antennas (Fig. 1), the at least two groups of isolating members being arranged at intervals along the preset direction to reduce coupling of electromagnetic waves between the at least two antennas (“the left-handed material isolation material 18 is arranged between the first antenna 11 and the second antenna 12, so as to reduce coupling of electromagnetic waves between the first antenna 11 and the second antenna 12 and improve isolation between the two antennas” Par. 0039).
Regarding Claim 2, Ma et al. teaches further comprising: a conductive member (implied ground of PCB 17 for monopole or dipole antennas Par. 0029, 0034, 0036), the two adjacent antennas being electrically connected through the conductive member (through PCB 17 Fig. 1 Par. 0034-0036), and there is a propagation space between the two adjacent antennas for the electromagnetic waves to propagate (Fig. 1), wherein: the isolating member includes a first isolating structure, the first isolating structure including a first isolating member and a second isolating member (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040), the first isolating member being used to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves in the propagation space, the second isolating member being used to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves on the conductive member (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 3, Ma et al. teaches wherein: the first isolating member is disposed in the propagation space to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves in the propagation space, and the second isolating member is disposed on the conductive member to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves on the conductive member (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 4, Ma et al. teaches wherein: the second isolating member is disposed in the propagation space, and the second isolating member and the first isolating member are arranged alternately in the preset direction (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 5, Ma et al. teaches further comprising: a dielectric substrate (PCB 17 Fig. 1 Par. 0034), at least two antennas and the conductive member being disposed on the dielectric substrate, the dielectric substrate including a mounting area (Fig. 1), the mounting area being located in the propagation space, the first isolating member being disposed in the mounting area (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 8, Ma et al. teaches wherein: the first isolating member is a first resonator, and/or the second isolating member is a second resonator (Fig. 2 Par. 0040).
Regarding Claim 9, Ma et al. teaches wherein: the first resonator is a first open resonant ring, and/or the second resonator is a second open resonant ring (Fig. 2 Par. 0040).
Regarding Claim 10, Ma et al. teaches wherein: the isolating member includes a second isolating structure, at least two second isolating structures being arranged at intervals along the preset direction (Fig. 2 Par. 0040).
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 6, 7 & 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0364817 and Koyanagi et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0306718.
Regarding Claim 6, Ma et al. teaches wherein: the first isolating member is configured to generate a first isolation wave, to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves in the propagation space (“the left-handed material isolation layer functions to change a transmission direction of an electromagnetic wave signal received or transmitted by the antennas, thereby weakening a coupling effect of the electromagnetic wave signals between the antennas” Par. 0025).
Ma et al. is silent on a phase of the first isolation wave being opposite to a phase of the electromagnetic waves coupled in the propagation space; and/or, the second isolating member is configured to generate a second isolation wave, a phase of the second isolation wave being opposite to the phase of the electromagnetic waves coupled to the conductive member to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves on the conductive member.
However, Koyanagi et al. teaches “a connection element 606 operates so as to generate a current distribution that is opposite in phase to a phase of coupling between elements” Par. 0012 Fig. 13; “Although the electric current flowing into the first antenna element 106 and the electric current flowing into the second antenna element 107 have substantially the same amplitude, they are opposite in phase to each other. When the first feeding section 104 is excited, the amount of electric currents flowing around the second feeding section 105 becomes smaller. This shows that coupling deterioration is lessened” Par. 0089.
In this particular case, configuring the first isolation member to generate a first isolation wave having a phase being opposite to a phase of the electromagnetic waves coupled in the propagation space is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Koyanagi et al. to lessen coupling deterioration.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first isolation wave of the first isolating member of Ma et al. to have a phase being opposite to a phase of the electromagnetic waves coupled in the propagation space based on the teachings of Koyanagi et al. as a result effect in order to lessen coupling deterioration and improve performance.
Regarding Claim 7, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein: a difference between a frequency of the first isolation wave and a frequency of the second isolation wave meets a preset value (Par. 0042 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 11, Ma et al. teaches a wireless device (Fig. 1), the wireless device including:
at least two antennas (11, 12 Fig. 1 Par. 0034), the at least two antennas being arranged at intervals along a preset direction (Fig. 1); and
at least two groups of isolating members (two pairs of isolation elements 18 Fig. 1 Par. 0034), the at least two groups of isolating members being arranged between two adjacent antennas (Fig. 1), the at least two groups of isolating members being arranged at intervals along the preset direction to reduce coupling of electromagnetic waves between the at least two antennas (“the left-handed material isolation material 18 is arranged between the first antenna 11 and the second antenna 12, so as to reduce coupling of electromagnetic waves between the first antenna 11 and the second antenna 12 and improve isolation between the two antennas” Par. 0039).
Ma et al. is silent on an electronic device comprising: a housing.
However, Koyanagi et al. teaches an electronic device comprising: a housing (100 Figs. 10-12 Par. 0106).
In this particular case, providing an electronic device with a housing such as a mobile phone is common and well known in the art as evident by Koyanagi et al. to provide wireless communications in an electronic device which houses the components.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the wireless device of Ma et al. within an electronic device with a housing such as a mobile phone based on the teachings of Koyanagi et al. as a result effect in order to provide wireless communications in an electronic device which houses the components.
Regarding Claim 12, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein the wireless device further includes: a conductive member (implied ground of PCB 17 for monopole or dipole antennas Par. 0029, 0034, 0036), the two adjacent antennas being electrically connected through the conductive member (through PCB 17 Fig. 1 Par. 0034-0036), and there is a propagation space between the two adjacent antennas for the electromagnetic waves to propagate (Fig. 1); and the isolating member includes: a first isolating structure, the first isolating structure including a first isolating member and a second isolating member (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040), the first isolating member being used to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves in the propagation space, the second isolating member being used to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves on the conductive member (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 13, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein: the first isolating member is disposed in the propagation space to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves in the propagation space, and the second isolating member is disposed on the conductive member to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves on the conductive member (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 14, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein: the second isolating member is disposed in the propagation space, and the second isolating member and the first isolating member are arranged alternately in the preset direction (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 15, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein the wireless device further includes: a dielectric substrate (PCB 17 Fig. 1 Par. 0034), at least two antennas and the conductive member being disposed on the dielectric substrate, the dielectric substrate including a mounting area (Fig. 1), the mounting area being located in the propagation space, the first isolating member being disposed in the mounting area (Figs. 1, 2 Par. 0039-0040).
Regarding Claim 16, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein: the first isolating member is configured to generate a first isolation wave, to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves in the propagation space (“the left-handed material isolation layer functions to change a transmission direction of an electromagnetic wave signal received or transmitted by the antennas, thereby weakening a coupling effect of the electromagnetic wave signals between the antennas” Par. 0025).
Ma et al. is silent on a phase of the first isolation wave being opposite to a phase of the electromagnetic waves coupled in the propagation space; and/or, the second isolating member is configured to generate a second isolation wave, a phase of the second isolation wave being opposite to the phase of the electromagnetic waves coupled to the conductive member to reduce the coupling of the electromagnetic waves on the conductive member.
However, Koyanagi et al. teaches “a connection element 606 operates so as to generate a current distribution that is opposite in phase to a phase of coupling between elements” Par. 0012 Fig. 13; “Although the electric current flowing into the first antenna element 106 and the electric current flowing into the second antenna element 107 have substantially the same amplitude, they are opposite in phase to each other. When the first feeding section 104 is excited, the amount of electric currents flowing around the second feeding section 105 becomes smaller. This shows that coupling deterioration is lessened” Par. 0089.
In this particular case, configuring the first isolation member to generate a first isolation wave having a phase being opposite to a phase of the electromagnetic waves coupled in the propagation space is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Koyanagi et al. to lessen coupling deterioration.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first isolation wave of the first isolating member of Ma et al. to have a phase being opposite to a phase of the electromagnetic waves coupled in the propagation space based on the teachings of Koyanagi et al. as a result effect in order to lessen coupling deterioration and improve performance.
Regarding Claim 17, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein: a difference between a frequency of the first isolation wave and a frequency of the second isolation wave meets a preset value (Par. 0042 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 18, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein: the first isolating member is a first resonator, and/or the second isolating member is a second resonator (Fig. 2 Par. 0040).
Regarding Claim 19, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein: the first resonator is a first open resonant ring, and/or the second resonator is a second open resonant ring (Fig. 2 Par. 0040).
Regarding Claim 20, Ma et al. as modified teaches wherein: the isolating member includes a second isolating structure, at least two second isolating structures being arranged at intervals along the preset direction (Fig. 2 Par. 0040).
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
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