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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first position”, “second position”, “target distance”, “first antenna clearance region”, “second antenna clearance region”, “at least three branches”, “first target direction”, “second target direction”, and “antenna clearance region” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, in line 2, “a” should read –an–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “wherein the first position and the second position satisfy a target distance” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact, whether said target distance refers to the distance between the first position and the second position, between the first position and another unspecified position, the second position and another unspecified position, or either position and another unspecified position. The claim is therefore indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of “in response to the first antenna operating in the second frequency band, the first microstrip line structure of the first antenna is able to generate resonance of the second frequency band without radiating the resonance of the second frequency band” and “ in response to the second antenna operating in the first frequency band, the second microstrip line structure of the second antenna able to generate resonance at the first frequency band without radiating the resonance of the first frequency band” are indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact the meaning of the first antenna or second antenna operating in the second frequency band or first frequency band, respectively, as the independent claim on which this depends recites “the first antenna operating in a first frequency band” and “the second antenna operating in a second frequency band”, thus rendering ambiguous the meaning of “operating” in this context, and thereby the meaning of the phrases “able to generate resonance” and “without radiating the resonance”, which renders the claim as a whole indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of “radiation efficiency of the first parasitic structure and the first feeding structure is better than a radiation efficiency of the first microstrip line structure” and “a radiation efficiency of the second parasitic structure and the second feeding structure is better than a radiation efficiency of the second microstrip line structure” are indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact in what manner of “radiation efficiency” the aspects of the antenna device are intended to be compared, and further, how the first microstrip line is intended to be compared to the first feeding structure, which itself comprises the first microstrip line, and similarly for the second microstrip line and the second feeding structure. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of “the first parasitic structure and the first feeding structure correspond to a first antenna clearance region, and the first microstrip line structure corresponds to a second antenna clearance region, and the second parasitic structure and the second feeding structure correspond to a third antenna clearance region, and the second microstrip line structure corresponds to a fourth antenna clearance region” are indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact where the delineations of the recited clearance regions lie, given it is established in the limitations of claim 1 that the first feeding structure comprises the first microstrip structure, and the second feeding structure comprises the second microstrip structure, suggesting that the second antenna clearance region is contained within the first antenna clearance region, and the fourth antenna clearance region is contained within the third antenna clearance region, rather than being distinctly defined regions. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of “the first microstrip line structure is located within a first area formed by the first feeding structure; and the second microstrip line structure is located within a second area formed by the second feeding structure” are indefinite in that the first feeding structure is recited to comprise the first microstrip line, and to form the first area in which the first microstrip line is located; similarly, the second feeding structure is recited to comprise the second microstrip line, and to form the second area in which the second microstrip line is located, resulting an ambiguity wherein the bounds of the first are and the second area are not defined in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make its meaning plain to one having ordinary skill in the art. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of “the first target direction being a direction toward the first feeding structure” and “the second target direction being a direction toward the second feeding structure” are indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact, which direction either of these are intended to be, as the first microstrip line structure is recited as a component of, and therefore contained within, the first feeding structure, and similarly the second microstrip line structure is recited as a component of, and therefore contained with, the second feeding structure. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of “the first target direction being a direction toward the first feeding structure” and “the second target direction being a direction toward the second feeding structure” are indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact, which direction either of these are intended to be, as the first microstrip line structure is recited as a component of, and therefore contained within, the first feeding structure, and similarly the second microstrip line structure is recited as a component of, and therefore contained with, the second feeding structure. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “a material including a metal having a dielectric constant greater than a preset value” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact what aspect is intended to be recited as ‘having a dielectric constant’, between the material as a whole, the included metal, or any other material components; in the case of the metal being recited to have a dielectric constant, this limitation is unclear as metals, being conductors, do not have a meaningful dielectric constant; and, the limitation of “greater than a preset value” is not limiting, as since said preset value is not defined, it may be arbitrarily determined. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation of “a antenna clearance region in the electronic device being limited” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact what the bounds of said antenna clearance region are, thus leading it to be arbitrarily defined and therefore not substantively limiting, the metes and bounds of the claim therefore being undefined. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-15 are also included for their dependency upon claim 1.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0154309) in view of Castaneda et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0279287).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. teaches (Fig. 1A) an electronic device, comprising: a first antenna (200), located at a first position and comprising a first parasitic structure (220) and a first feeding structure (210 and 230), the first feeding structure including a first microstrip line structure (210) and the first antenna operating in a first frequency band (¶26 lines 7-9); and a second antenna (300), located at a second position and comprising a second parasitic structure (320) and a second feeding structure (310 and 330), the second feeding structure including a second microstrip line structure (310) and the second antenna operating in a second frequency band (¶27 lines 8-12); wherein the first position and the second position satisfy a target distance (antennas are spaced apart by gap G, see ¶31).
Lin does not explicitly teach the first microstrip line structure is configure to suppress the first antenna from receiving radiation signals in the second frequency band, and the second microstrip line structure is configured to suppress the second antenna from receiving radiation signals in the first frequency band.
Castaneda et al. teaches (Fig. 8) an electronic device, comprising: a first antenna (100), located at a first position, comprising a first feeding structure including a first microstrip line structure (126; see ¶43), and the first antenna operating in a first frequency band (low band, near 13.65 MHz; see ¶45); and a second antenna (102), located at a second position, comprising a second feeding structure including a second microstrip line structure (124; see ¶43), and the second antenna operating in a second frequency band (high band, near 2.4 GHz; see ¶45); and the first microstrip line structure is configure to suppress the first antenna from receiving radiation signals in the second frequency band, and the second microstrip line structure is configured to suppress the second antenna from receiving radiation signals in the first frequency band (see ¶45).
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 electronic device of Lin such that the first microstrip line structure is configured to suppress the first antenna from receiving radiation signals in the second frequency band, and the second microstrip line structure is configured to suppress the second antenna from receiving radiation signals in the first frequency band, employing the teachings of Castaneda.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of improving simultaneous function of the first antenna and second antenna by improving respective gain (Castaneda, ¶31).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein: in response to the first antenna operating in the second frequency band, the first microstrip line structure of the first antenna is able to generate resonance of the second frequency band without radiating the resonance of the second frequency band (in the case of 200 operating in the second frequency band, elements of 300 may resonate in the second frequency band without actively radiating said resonance; see ¶26-27); and in response to the second antenna operating in the first frequency band, the second microstrip line structure of the second antenna is able to generate resonance at the first frequency band without radiating the resonance of the first frequency band (similarly in the case of 300 operating in the first frequency band, elements of 200 may resonate in the second frequency band without actively radiating said resonance; see ¶26-27).
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein: a radiation efficiency of the first parasitic structure and the first feeding structure (200 in total) is better than a radiation efficiency of the first microstrip structure (210 alone; see ¶26, 210 in tandem with 220 and 230 operates more broadly, thus more efficiently, than does 210 alone); and a radiation efficiency of the second parasitic structure and the second feeding structure (300 in total) is better than a radiation efficiency of the second microstrip line structure (310 alone; see ¶27, 310 in tandem with 320 and 330 operates more broadly, thus more efficiently, than does 310 alone).
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein: the first parasitic structure and the first feeding structure correspond to a first antenna clearance region (region of 100 in plane of D1 and D2 which encompasses 200), and the first microstrip line structure corresponds to a second antenna clearance region (region of 100 in plane of D1 and D2 which encompasses 210), and the second parasitic structure and the second feeding structure correspond to a third antenna clearance region (region of 100 in plane of D1 and D2 which encompasses 300), and the second microstrip structure corresponds to a fourth antenna clearance region (region of 100 in plane of D1 and D2 which encompasses 310).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein: the first microstrip line structure (210) is located within a first area formed by the first feeding structure (an area as recited may be arbitrarily defined; 210 is formed within an area defined in part by 230 and 210); and the second microstrip line structure (310) is located within a second area formed by the second feeding structure (an area as recited may be arbitrarily defined; 310 is formed within an area defined in part by 330 and 310).
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein: the first microstrip line structure is bent to form at least three branches (see left, right, and downward extending portions of 210), two branches of the at least three branches overlapping in a first target direction, and the first target direction being a direction toward the first feeding structure (left and right portions overlap in D1 direction); and the second microstrip line structure is bent to form at least three branches (left, right, and downward extending portions of 310), two branches of the at least three branches overlapping in a second target direction, and the second target direction being a direction toward the second feeding structure (left and right portions overlap in D1 direction).
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, wherein: the first microstrip line structure is bent to form at least three branches (see left, right, and downward extending portions of 210), two branches of the at least three branches overlapping in a first target direction, and the first target direction being a direction toward the first feeding structure (left and right portions overlap in D1 direction); and the second microstrip line structure is bent to form at least three branches (left, right, and downward extending portions of 310), two branches of the at least three branches overlapping in a second target direction, and the second target direction being a direction toward the second feeding structure (left and right portions overlap in D1 direction).
Regarding claim 8, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first microstrip line structure (210) and the second microstrip line structure (310) is made of a material including a metal having a dielectric constant greater than a preset value (see ¶21 lines 7-13; a ‘preset value’ not being otherwise defined, it may be arbitrarily determined, thus any dielectric constant teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein: a length of the first microstrip line structure is determined based on the second frequency band (¶26 lines 9-13; 210 is a component of the aspect of 200 which radiates in the second frequency band, thus its length is determined based on the second frequency band); and a length of the second microstrip line structure is determined based on the first frequency band (¶27 lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first parasitic structure and the second parasitic structure is L-shaped (220 and 320 are each L-shaped).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Li n teaches the electronic device according to claim 5, wherein: the first feeding structure further includes a first feeding section (Annotated Fig. 1A, 1.f.1), and the second feeding structure further includes a second feeding section (1.f.2); and the first feeding section and the second feeding section are L-shaped (see annotated Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 12, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 11, wherein: the first feeding section is also arranged in the first area of the first feeding structure (see Fig. 1A, area defined in part by 230 and 210), and the first microstrip line structure and the first feeding section have a contact point (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 11, wherein: the second feeding section is also arranged in the second area of the second feeding structure (see Fig. 1A, area defined in part by 330 and 310), and the second microstrip line structure and the second feeding section have a contact point (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 14, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein: the first antenna includes a coupled feeding form (210 is coupled to 220 and 230), and the second antenna includes a coupled feeding form (310 is coupled to 320 and 330).
Regarding claim 15, Lin teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein: in response to a antenna clearance region in the electronic device being limited, only the first parasitic structure and the second parasitic structure are placed in the antenna clearance region (said antenna clearance region not being otherwise recited, it is understood to be arbitrarily defined, thus may be defined such that only the first parasitic structure and the second parasitic structure are placed in the antenna clearance region, as taught by Lin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2014/0375507), Chen et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0248264), Chang et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0093949), Hakansson et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0013519), Lee et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0221648), and Yoshida (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0372383) each teach an electronic device comprising a first antenna, a second antenna, and band pass elements therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights