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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 15-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kallos et al. WIPO Publication WO2023235418A1 (cited by applicant).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Kallos et al. teaches a system (Figs. 24A, 24B, 25A, 25B, 34A-34C) comprising:
a conductive mesh layer (2504 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 216), wherein the conductive mesh layer includes a lattice comprising a plurality of different electrically conductive links (better seen in Figs. 34A-34C), and wherein the electrically conductive links are shaped according to at least one specified form (better seen in Figs. 34A-34C);
an active dimming layer configured to provide active dimming according to a control signal (2504 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 217); and
an antenna feed (2517 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218) connected to the conductive mesh layer, wherein antenna feed circuitry (RF source Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218) drives the conductive mesh layer as a radiating element of an antenna (2515 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218).
Regarding Claim 2, Kallos et al. teaches wherein the electrically conductive lattice links are shaped in the form of a sine curve (implied from wavy / curved line Par. 242, 243).
Regarding Claim 3, Kallos et al. teaches wherein the electrically conductive lattice links are shaped in a straight line along a first axis and shaped in the form of a sine curve on a second axis (implied from wavy / curved line Par. 242, 243).
Regarding Claim 4, Kallos et al. teaches wherein the electrically conductive lattice links are shaped in the form of a sine curve along a first axis and are also shaped in the form of a sine curve on a second axis (implied from wavy / curved line Par. 242, 243).
Regarding Claim 6, Kallos et al. teaches wherein the electrically conductive lattice links are shaped in a random pattern and intersect with each other at random locations on the conductive mesh layer (Fig. 34B Par. 241-243).
Regarding Claim 12, Kallos et al. teaches further comprising a bus bar positioned on an outer portion of the conductive mesh layer (2411 Fig. 24B Par. 212 / 2511 Fig. 25B Par. 217, 218).
Regarding Claim 13, Kallos et al. teaches wherein the bus bar comprises a conductive ring that surrounds at least a portion of the conductive mesh and the active dimming layer (Fig. 24B Par. 212 / Fig. 25B Par. 217, 218).
Regarding Claim 15, Kallos et al. teaches a mobile electronic device (Figs. 24A, 24B, 25A, 25B, 34A-34C), comprising:
a conductive mesh layer (2504 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 216), wherein the conductive mesh layer includes a lattice comprising a plurality of different electrically conductive links (better seen in Figs. 34A-34C), and wherein the electrically conductive links are shaped according to at least one specified form (better seen in Figs. 34A-34C);
an active dimming layer configured to provide active dimming according to a control signal (2504 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 217); and
an antenna feed (2517 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218) connected to the conductive mesh layer, wherein antenna feed circuitry (RF source Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218) drives the conductive mesh layer as a radiating element of an antenna (2515 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218).
Regarding Claim 16, Kallos et al. teaches wherein the electrically conductive lattice links are shaped in the form of a sine curve (implied from wavy / curved line Par. 242, 243).
Regarding Claim 17, Kallos et al. teaches wherein the electrically conductive lattice links are shaped in a straight line along a first axis and shaped in the form of a sine curve on a second axis (implied from wavy / curved line Par. 242, 243).
Regarding Claim 18, Kallos et al. teaches wherein the electrically conductive lattice links are shaped in the form of a sine curve along a first axis and are also shaped in the form of a sine curve on a second axis (implied from wavy / curved line Par. 242, 243).
Regarding Claim 20, Kallos et al. teaches an apparatus (Figs. 24A, 24B, 25A, 25B, 34A-34C) comprising:
a conductive mesh layer, wherein the conductive mesh layer includes a lattice comprising a plurality of different electrically conductive links (better seen in Figs. 34A-34C), and wherein the electrically conductive links are shaped according to at least one specified form (better seen in Figs. 34A-34C);
an active dimming layer configured to provide active dimming according to a control signal (2504 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 217); and
an antenna feed (2517 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218) connected to the conductive mesh layer, wherein antenna feed circuitry (RF source Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218) drives the conductive mesh layer as a radiating element of an antenna (2515 Figs. 25A, 25B Par. 218).
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kallos et al. WIPO Publication WO2023235418A1 (cited by applicant) and Kaufmann et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0166125.
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 7, Kallos et al. teaches the system of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Kallos et al. is silent on wherein at least one lattice ring of the electrically conductive lattice includes at least one compensating branch.
However, Kaufmann et al. teaches wherein at least one lattice ring of the electrically conductive lattice includes at least one compensating branch (110a-110c Fig. 1 Par. 0033 / 910a-910c Fig. 9 Par. 0043).
In this particular case, providing the electrically conductive lattice with at least one compensating branch is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Kaufmann et al. to provide tuning to achieve target frequency bands (Par. 0027).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at least one lattice ring of the electrically conductive lattice of Kallos et al. to include at least one compensating branch based on the teachings of Kaufmann et al. as a result effect in order to provide tuning to achieve target frequency bands.
Regarding Claim 8, Kallos et al. as modified teaches wherein the compensating branch includes one or more conductive link segments (Kaufmann et al. Figs. 1, 9 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 9, Kallos et al. as modified teaches wherein the conductive link segments are at least one of straight or curved (Kaufmann et al. Figs. 1, 9 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 10, Kallos et al. as modified teaches wherein at least one of the conductive link segments includes at least one branched portion (Kaufmann et al. Figs. 1, 9 as modified above).
Regarding Claim 11, Kallos et al. as modified teaches further comprising a second conductive mesh layer that is shaped in a different specified form (2505 Fig. 25A Par. 217).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 14 & 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 5, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitation “wherein the second axis is at least partially shifted horizontally or vertically relative to the first axis” as required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitation “wherein the bus bar is formed as a solid pattern on the conductive mesh layer using a sealing material” as required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitation “wherein the second axis is at least partially shifted horizontally or vertically relative to the first axis” as required by the claim.
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