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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 10/14/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2025 and 01/21/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 13 recites “output ends of differential mode feed structures connected to a same side of any two radiation units have a same polarity” but there is no drawings showing there are a plurality of differential mode feed structures.
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the antenna comprises a first radiator” should read “the antenna comprises: a first radiator” to separate the preamble and the body of the claim.
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 and 18 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 1 recites the limitation "the two signals output from the two signal output ends are equi-amplitude phase-inverted signals" in lines 9-10 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-15 and 18 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " wherein the differential mode feed structure comprises a third feed source; and a first electrode of the third feed source is coupled to the first feed point, the first electrode of the third feed source is coupled to the second feed point through a phase inversion component, and the phase inversion component is configured to provide a phase inversion function of 180 degrees" in lines 1-5 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no first and second feed sources previously recited. It is not clear if claim 5 depends on claim 4 or claim 1 and if there are totally three feed sources because there is no support for this limitation in the spec. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets as “a feed source”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " wherein a feed signal outputted by the differential mode feed structure and then inputted to the first radiator has a high-impedance port characteristic, and the high-impedance port characteristic is implemented by connecting a capacitor in series" in lines 1-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how this feed signal relates to the two signals output from the two signal output ends of the differential mode feed structure recited in claim 1. Moreover, it is not clear what a capacitor is connecting in series with. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 7 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 6 and is subsequently rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " wherein a match circuit is disposed between the differential mode feed structure and the first radiator, and the match circuit is configured to adjust the feed signal outputted by the differential mode feed structure to the high-impedance port characteristic" in lines 1-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the match circuit and the capacitor recited in claim 6 is the same or different elements because they both implement the high-impedance port characteristic. Moreover, para [0084] stated “a capacitor or other components may be disposed in series in the match circuit to implement the adjustment of increasing a port impedance”, it sounds like the capacitor is the match circuit. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein when the antenna operates, a maximum current amplitude difference on the first radiator is less than a second value, the second value is a maximum current amplitude difference on a radiator when a dipole antenna operates, and a length of the radiator of the dipole antenna is the first value” in lines 1-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what the maximum current amplitude difference is, what the current amplitudes are being measured to have the difference, how this amplitude relates to the equi-amplitude recited in claim 1. It is also not clear how this radiator and dipole antenna relate to the first radiator and the antenna recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein the first radiator is divided into at least two radiation units by at least one slot; two ends of each radiation unit are connected to the two signal output ends of the differential mode feed structure respectively; and output ends of differential mode feed structures connected to a same side of any two radiation units have a same polarity” in lines 1-6 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how “each radiation unit” and “any two radiation units” relate to the at least two radiation units. It is not clear how these output ends relate to the two signal output ends. Moreover, it is not clear how the differential mode feed structures relate to the differential mode feed structure. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 14 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 13 and is subsequently rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein at least one capacitor is disposed in series to the first radiator; and when a plurality of capacitors are connected in series to the first radiator, at least part of the first radiator is comprised between any two of the capacitors” in lines 1-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how “at least one capacitor”, “a plurality of capacitors” and “any two of the capacitors” are related. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
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 1-3, 6-10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al, US-20230101129-A1 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Huang discloses the following:
an antenna, wherein the antenna is used in an electronic device;
the antenna comprises a first radiator (21, fig. 2); and
a first feed point (21c) and a second feed point (21d) are disposed at two ends of the first radiator respectively, the first feed point and the second feed point (21c, 21d) are connected to two signal output ends (221, 222) of a differential mode feed structure respectively (para [0056]), the two signal output ends (221, 222) have different polarities (fig. 2, par [0058]), and the two signals output from the two signal output ends are equi-amplitude phase-inverted signals (para [0056]).
Although Huang does not explicitly disclose a length of the first radiator is less than or equal to a first value, and the first value corresponds to 1/2 wavelength of an operating frequency of the antenna, Huang discloses the radiator follows the principle of quarter-wavelength resonance (para [0067]), “increasing the effective radiation length of the NFC antenna, thereby improving the performance of the NFC antenna” (para [0088], [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the length of the first radiator taught in Huang to be less than or equal to a 1/2 wavelength of an operating frequency of the antenna as claimed, 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 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to be able to achieve the desired radiating characteristics and adjust the length of the radiator in order to fit the antenna in a limited space of the application while still maintaining the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 2, although Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the length of the first radiator is less than or equal to 1/4 wavelength of the operating frequency, Huang discloses the radiator follows the principle of quarter-wavelength resonance (para [0067]), “increasing the effective radiation length of the NFC antenna, thereby improving the performance of the NFC antenna” (para [0088], [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the length of the first radiator taught in Huang to be less than or equal to a 1/4 wavelength of the operating frequency as claimed, 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 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to be able to achieve the desired radiating characteristics and adjust the length of the radiator in order to fit the antenna in a limited space of the application while still maintaining the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 3, although Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the length of the first radiator is less than or equal to 1/8 wavelength of the operating frequency, Huang discloses the radiator follows the principle of quarter-wavelength resonance (para [0067]), “increasing the effective radiation length of the NFC antenna, thereby improving the performance of the NFC antenna” (para [0088], [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the length of the first radiator taught in Huang to be less than or equal to a 1/8 wavelength of the operating frequency as claimed, 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 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to be able to achieve the desired radiating characteristics and adjust the length of the radiator in order to fit the antenna in a limited space of the application while still maintaining the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Huang discloses wherein a feed signal outputted by the differential mode feed structure (221, 222, fig. 13) and then inputted to the first radiator (21) has a high-impedance port characteristic (para [0114]: the first matching circuit 271 is configured to match an impedance of the part between the second feeding point 21c and the third feeding point 21d when the part between the second feeding point 21c and the third feeding point 21d transmitting the differential excitation current, it is implied that the impedance of one feed point is higher, i.e. high-impedance port characteristic), and the high-impedance port characteristic is implemented by connecting a capacitor in series (para [0122]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Huang discloses wherein a match circuit (271, fig. 13) is disposed between the differential mode feed structure (221, 222) and the first radiator (21), and the match circuit is configured to adjust the feed signal outputted by the differential mode feed structure to the high-impedance port characteristic (para [0114]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Regarding claim 8, although Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein when the antenna operates, the antenna operates in a 0.5-time wavelength mode, Huang discloses the radiator follows the principle of quarter-wavelength resonance (para [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the antenna taught in Huang in a 0.5-time wavelength mode as claimed, since it has 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). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired radiating characteristic depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, although Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein when the antenna operates, a maximum current amplitude difference on the first radiator is less than a second value, the second value is a maximum current amplitude difference on a radiator when a dipole antenna operates, and a length of the radiator of the dipole antenna is the first value, the antenna in Huang has the same structure, thus the skilled artisan would recognize that it would also be configured to, without undue experimentation, and able to have the predictable result of performing in a similar manner. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of invention to adjust the maximum current amplitude difference taught in Huang to be less than the maximum current amplitude difference on a radiator when a dipole antenna operates as claimed, 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 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired radiating characteristics depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses wherein the first radiator is in a stripe shape, and a straight line (21, fig. 4) on which a long side of the first radiator is located is parallel to a reference ground (60, para [0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses wherein a ground stub (210, fig. 4) is further comprised at a middle position of the first radiator (21).
Regarding claim 18, Huang discloses an electronic device, wherein the antenna is disposed in the electronic device (100, figs. 3-4, para [0038]); and when transmitting or receiving a signal, the electronic device transmits or receives the signal through the antenna (it is well-known in the art that the antenna transmits or receives signal).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Wang et al, US-20220149525-A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 4, Huang does not disclose wherein the differential mode feed structure comprises a first feed source and a second feed source;
a first electrode of the first feed source is coupled to the first feed point, and a second electrode of the second feed source is coupled to the second feed point; and
the first electrode is a positive electrode, and the second electrode is a negative electrode; or the first electrode is a negative electrode, and the second electrode is a positive electrode.
Wang suggests wherein the differential mode feed structure (para [0059]) comprises a first feed source (702a, fig. 7) and a second feed source (702b);
a first electrode of the first feed source (702a) is coupled to the first feed point (the point connecting 701a and 206a), and a second electrode of the second feed source (702b) is coupled to the second feed point (the point connecting 701b and 206b); and
the first electrode is a positive electrode, and the second electrode is a negative electrode (fig. 7); or the first electrode is a negative electrode, and the second electrode is a positive electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide first and second feed sources as suggested in Wang to the antenna taught in Huang as claimed for the purpose of feeding two separate signals with inverted phase in order to improve the isolation between the two signals.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Wang, US-20230208027-A1 (hereinafter Wang’027).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Huang does not disclose wherein the differential mode feed structure comprises a third feed source; and a first electrode of the third feed source is coupled to the first feed point, the first electrode of the third feed source is coupled to the second feed point through a phase inversion component, and the phase inversion component is configured to provide a phase inversion function of 180 degrees.
Huang discloses the signals of the first and second feed points differ by 180 degrees (para [0056]).
Wang’027 suggests wherein the differential mode feed structure comprises a third feed source (41, fig. 3); and a first electrode of the third feed source is coupled to the first feed point (103), the first electrode of the third feed source is coupled to the second feed point (104) through a phase inversion component (60), and the phase inversion component is configured to provide a phase inversion function of 180 degrees (para [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the phase inversion component as suggested in Want’027 to the antenna taught in Huang as claimed for the purpose of providing phase-inverted signals to the first and second feed points in order to increase the radiation length of the antenna to improve the antenna’s performance (Huang, para [0088]).
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Chiang et al, US-20190214741-A1 (hereinafter Chaing).
Regarding claim 11, Huang does not disclose wherein the first radiator comprises a first part, a second part, and a third part that are connected in sequence; and the first part is perpendicular to a reference ground, the third part is perpendicular to the reference ground, and the second part is disposed between the first part and the third part.
Chiang suggests wherein the first radiator comprises a first part (251, fig. 2), a second part (220), and a third part (252) that are connected in sequence; and the first part (251) is perpendicular to a reference ground (GND), the third part (253) is perpendicular to the reference ground (GND), and the second part (220) is disposed between the first part and the third part (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the radiator taught in Huang comprising the first, second and third parts as suggested in Chiang for the purpose of orienting the radiating beam of antenna in different directions in order to increase the coverage area to improve the wireless communication.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Zou et al, CN-112510362-A (hereinafter Zou).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Huang does not disclose wherein the first radiator is divided into at least two radiation units by at least one slot; two ends of each radiation unit are connected to the two signal output ends of the differential mode feed structure respectively; and output ends of differential mode feed structures connected to a same side of any two radiation units have a same polarity.
Zou suggests wherein the first radiator is divided into at least two radiation units (21, fig. 13) by at least one slot (fig. 13); two ends of each radiation unit are connected to the two signal output ends of the differential mode feed structure respectively (30, fig. 3); and output ends of differential mode feed structures connected to a same side of any two radiation units have a same polarity (fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divide the radiator taught in Huang into at least two radiation units as suggested in Zou as claimed for the purpose of distributing the feeding signals uniformly in shorter radiation units in order to increase the radiating power and improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 14, Huang does not disclose wherein a size of the slot is comprised in a range of [0.1 mm, 5 mm].
Although Zou does not disclose wherein a size of the slot is comprised in a range of [0.1 mm, 5 mm], Zou discloses there is a slot between the two radiation units (fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size of the slot taught in Huang and Zou to be comprised in a range of [0.1 mm, 5 mm] as claimed, 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 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to be able to achieve the desired radiating characteristics and adjust the length of the radiator in order to fit the antenna in a limited space of the application while still maintaining the antenna’s performance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Kim et al, US-20080174503-A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Huang does not disclose wherein at least one capacitor is disposed in series to the first radiator; and when a plurality of capacitors are connected in series to the first radiator, at least part of the first radiator is comprised between any two of the capacitors.
Kim suggests wherein at least one capacitor (107-110, fig. 4) is disposed in series to the first radiator (102); and when a plurality of capacitors are connected in series to the first radiator, at least part of the first radiator is comprised between any two of the capacitors (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a plurality of capacitors in series as suggested in Kim to the first radiator taught in Huang as claimed for the purpose of distributing the feeding signals uniformly in shorter radiation units in order to increase the radiating power and improve the antenna’s performance (Kim, para [0073]).
Citation of Pertinent Art
Li et al, US-20240088541-A1, fig. 4 could read on claim 1
Wang et al, US-20230283698-A1, fig. 6 could read on claim 1
Shewan et al, US-20170062912-A1, fig. 3 could read on claim 1
Liu et al, CN-112803158-A, fig. 6 could read on claim 1
Khraisat et al, "Analysis of the radiation Resistance and Gain of Full-Wave Dipole Antenna for Different Feeding Design", fig. 4 would read on claim 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights