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 “wherein the substrate is formed in multiple layers, and the pattern part is formed on at least one substrate” of claim 15, “wherein the substrate includes an upper substrate and a lower substrate stacked to each other, and each end of the first to third patterns is connected to the upper substrate and the lower substrate through a via hole, respectively” of claim 16, and the “wherein the first pattern and the second pattern are disposed to have different distances from the ground area” of claim 17 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
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 15-19 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.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the substrate is formed in multiple layers, and the pattern part is formed on at least one substrate”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “at least one substrate” in the claim. The specification and drawings do not provide any clarification as they also do not show multiple layers or substrates. It will be construed as having multiple surfaces, and the pattern part is formed on at least one surface for the purpose of examination.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15, and therefore also rejected.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the substrate includes an upper substrate and a lower substrate stacked to each other, and each end of the first to third patterns is connected to the upper substrate and the lower substrate through a via hole, respectively”. Each of the first to third patterns are a square spiral shape, so it is unclear how each end of each end of each pattern would be connected to both sides of the substrates. For example, as claimed, the center of each pattern would be connected to a via that connects to both sides of the substrates and the outer end of each pattern would also have a via hole that connects to both sides of the substrates. Another way of construing it would be a single via hole that connects both ends of each first to third pattern to both sides. The specification and drawings do not provide any clarification as they also do not show multiple layers or substrates or via holes.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the first pattern and the second pattern are disposed to have different distances from the ground area”. However, claim 11 recites that the “second pattern disposed at a position symmetrical to the first pattern with respect to the ground pattern”. Therefore, claim 17 contradicts claim 11 since if they were symmetrical with respect to the ground pattern, they would not have different distances from the ground area.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the first pattern and the second pattern transmit signals of the same frequency band”, however it is disclosed in the specification (paragraph [37]) that the first and second patterns are used in the form of a resonator to reduce coupling so they are not actually transmitting signals in a frequency band. The specification (paragraph [34]) does state that the first and second antennas transmit signals of the same frequency band, so it is unclear if the applicant meant antennas instead of patterns in claim 18 (which the claim will be construed as), or if the patterns are somehow transmitting signals in a frequency band without being fed a signal.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 18, and therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 11, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (US 2013/0162496) in view of Aizawa et al. (US 2012/0212389, hereby referred as Aizawa).
Regarding claim 11, Wakabayashi teaches the following:
a multiple-input multiple-output antenna comprising:
a substrate (Substrate, shown in figures 2-4) comprising a non-ground area;
a ground area (GND, figure 12);
a first antenna (111a, figure 12) and a second antenna (112a, figure 12) formed to be spaced apart from each other in the non-ground area; and
a pattern part (12b, figure 12) disposed in the non-ground area between the first antenna and the second antenna and having a plurality of induction patterns (121b-123b and 125, figure 12) configured to cancel out coupling between the first antenna and the second antenna,
wherein the pattern part comprises:
a first pattern (121b, figure 12) disposed to be spaced apart from the first antenna by a predetermined distance;
a ground pattern (123b, figure 12) configured to connect an end of the first pattern to the ground area;
a second pattern (122b, figure 12) disposed at a position symmetrical to the first pattern with respect to the ground pattern; and
a third pattern (125, figure 12, paragraph [0066]) disposed between the ground pattern and the ground area.
Wakabayashi does not explicitly teach that the substrate also includes the ground area.
Aizawa suggests the teachings of a substrate (14, shown in figures 2-4) comprising a ground area (GND, figures 2-4) non-ground area (everywhere else on the substrate that does not include the ground, figures 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the substrate of Wakabayashi to also include the ground area as suggested by the teachings of Aizawa so that all the components of the antenna are printed on a single substrate which can ease the manufacturing process since it would all be in one package instead of connecting a separate substrate with a separate ground plane.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Wakabayashi as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein the substrate (Wakabayashi, Substrate, shown in figures 2-4)(Aizawa, 14, shown in figures 2-4) is formed in multiple layers (Wakabayashi, the top layer and the bottom layer) (Aizawa, 14, shown in figures 2-4), and the pattern part (Wakabayashi, 12b, figures 12) (Aizawa, 13, shown in figures 2-4) is formed on at least one substrate.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Wakabayashi as referred in claim 15 teaches the multiple-input multiple-output antenna with the exception for the following:
wherein the substrate includes an upper substrate and a lower substrate stacked to each other, and each end of the first to third patterns is connected to the upper substrate and the lower substrate through a via hole, respectively.
Aizawa suggests the teachings of a wherein the substrate (14, shown in figures 2-4) includes an upper substrate and a lower substrate stacked to each other (14, as shown in figures 2-4), and each end of the first to third patterns (individual patterns of 13, figures 2-4) is connected to the upper substrate and the lower substrate through a via hole, respectively (as shown in figures 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the substrate of Wakabayashi as modified to include an upper substrate and a lower substrate stacked to each other, and each end of the first to third patterns is connected to the upper substrate and the lower substrate through a via hole, respectively, as suggested by the teachings of Aizawa as having the patterns on both sides of a substrate can be used to decrease the space needed an in turn reduce the space needed for the antenna as a whole (paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Wakabayashi as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein the first antenna (111a, figure 12) and the second antenna (112a, figure 12) transmit signals of the same frequency band.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Wakabayashi as referred in claim 18 teaches the following:
wherein the first pattern (121b, figure 12) and the second pattern (122b, figure 12) have the same shape.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (US 2013/0162496).
Regarding claim 13, Wakabayashi as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein a number of turns of the first pattern is the same as a number of turns of the second pattern (as shown in figure 12).
Wakabayashi does not explicitly teach the number of turns of the first pattern is the same as or smaller than a number of the third pattern.
However, Wakabayashi does teach that the third pattern is a 10 nH inductor. Depending on the AL coefficient of a core of the inductor, a 10 nH inductor can have 4 complete turns around the core. The number of periods/cycles of the first pattern and the second pattern which are meandering patterns in Wakabayashi is 4. Wakabayashi also teaches that the inductor can be a wiring pattern having an inductance instead of an inductor (paragraph [0066]). It is also known in the art that the length and number of turns of a wiring pattern can adjust its inductance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a number of turns of the first pattern of Wakabayashi is the same as or smaller than a number of the third pattern as suggested by the teachings of Wakabayashi and known in the art in order to adjust and reduce the cross coupling between the antenna elements (paragraph [0036]-[0037]). It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Wakabayashi as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein a number of turns of the second pattern is the same as a number of turns of the first pattern (as shown in figure 12).
Wakabayashi does not explicitly teach the number of turns of the second pattern is the same as or smaller than a number of the third pattern.
However, Wakabayashi does teach that the third pattern is a 10 nH inductor. Depending on the AL coefficient of a core of the inductor, a 10 nH inductor can have 4 complete turns around the core. The number of periods/cycles of the first pattern and the second pattern which are meandering patterns in Wakabayashi is 4. Wakabayashi also teaches that the inductor can be a wiring pattern having an inductance instead of an inductor (paragraph [0066]). It is also known in the art that the length and number of turns of a wiring pattern can adjust its inductance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a number of turns of the second pattern of Wakabayashi is the same as or smaller than a number of the third pattern as suggested by the teachings of Wakabayashi and known in the art in order to adjust and reduce the cross coupling between the antenna elements (paragraph [0036]-[0037]). It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (US 2013/0162496) in view of Aizawa et al. (US 2012/0212389, hereby referred as Aizawa), and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2016/0261045, hereby referred as Cheng) and Steigerwald et al. (US 8104165, hereby referred as Steigerwald).
Regarding claim 20, Wakabayashi as referred in claim 11 teaches the multiple-input multiple-output antenna with the exception for the following:
wherein, when the first antenna and the second antenna satisfy a voltage wave standing ratio criterion of 3.0 or less in a frequency band of 2.45 GHz, insertion loss is greater than -30 dB but less than - 20 dB.
Cheng suggests the teachings of the first antenna and the second antenna satisfy a voltage wave standing ratio criterion of 3.0 or less in a frequency band of 2.45 GHz (paragraph [0038], figures 4).
Steigerwald suggests the teachings of insertion loss is greater than -30 dB but less than - 20 dB (figure 5, column 18, lines 7-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have wherein, when the first antenna and the second antenna of Wakabayashi satisfy a voltage wave standing ratio criterion of 3.0 or less in a frequency band of 2.45 GHz, insertion loss is greater than -30 dB but less than - 20 dB as suggested by the teachings of Cheng and Steigerwald which can be used to provide a desired antenna performance. In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (US 2013/0162496) in view of Aizawa et al. (US 2012/0212389, hereby referred as Aizawa), and further in view of Shi et al. (US 2013/0016024, hereby referred as Shi).
Regarding claim 27, Wakabayashi as referred in claim 11 teaches the multiple-input multiple-output antenna with the exception for the following:
wherein the first antenna and the second antenna transmit signals of different frequency bands.
Shi suggests the teachings of wherein the first antenna (Antenna 1, figures 2-3) and the second antenna (Antenna 2, figures 2-3) transmit signals of different frequency bands (paragraphs [0021], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first antenna and the second antenna of Wakabayashi to transmit signals of different frequency bands as suggested by the teachings of Shi in order to allow the antenna to radiate in multiple different frequency bands which can also reduce the amount of interference between the adjacent antennas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 21-26 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
