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
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (“A Compact, Highly Efficient and Flexible Polymer Ultra-Wideband Antenna”, IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 14, 2 February 2015 (2015-02-02), pages 1207-1210, XP011582823, ISSN: 1536-1225, DOI: 10.1109/LAWP.2015.2398424), hereinafter Chen. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Chen (Figures 1, 3 and 4) teaches a flexible printed circuit board which has one surface on which a feeding area and a plurality of ground areas that are electrically separated from the feeding area are disposed, the flexible printed circuit board comprising:
a first board portion connected to an antenna (Figures 1, 3(a) and 3(b), dielectric board portion connected to monopole radiator);
a second board portion connected to a connector (Figures 3(a) and 3(b), dielectric board portion connected to coaxial connector); and
a third board portion disposed between the first board portion and the second board portion (Figures 1, 3(a) and 3(b), dielectric portion connected to the coplanar waveguide),
wherein a first width of a first feeding area disposed in the first board portion is greater than a second width of a second feeding area disposed in the second board portion (Figures 1, 3(a) and 3(b), width of the coplanar waveguide at the feed point of the monopole antenna is wider than at the connection to the coaxial connector),
a width of one end of a third feeding area disposed in the third board portion, one end being adjacent to the first board portion, corresponds to the first width (Figures 1, 3(a) and 3(b), width of the feed conductor of the coplanar waveguide connected to the feed point of the monopole antenna), and
a width of the other end of the third feeding area, the other end being adjacent to the second board portion, corresponds to the second width (Figures 1, 3(a) and 3(b), width of the feed conductor of the coplanar waveguide connected to the coaxial connector).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Chen (Figures 1, 3(a) and 3(b)) teaches a third width of at least part of the third feeding area is smaller than the first width, and is larger than the second width (width of taper portion between feed conductor of the coplanar waveguide connected to the feed point of the monopole antenna and the width of the feed conductor of the coplanar waveguide connected to the coaxial connector).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, Chen (Figures 1, 3(a) and 3(b)) teaches that the third width increases as it approaches the first board portion (width of the taper portion increases from the connection to the coaxial connector to the connection to the monopole).
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 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (KR 2022-0131335A), hereinafter Jung. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Jung (Figure 13a) teaches a flexible printed circuit board 1010 which has one surface on which a feeding area (middle lower area connecting to RF cable) and a plurality of ground areas (1150a and 1150b) that are electrically separated from the feeding area are disposed, the flexible printed circuit board comprising:
a first board portion connected to an antenna (top portion of 1010 connecting to 1110a and 1110b);
a second board portion connected to a connector (portion of 1010 connecting to connector of RF cable); and
a third board portion disposed between the first board portion and the second board portion (portion of 1010 between 1110a/1110b and connection to connector of RF cable),
a width of one end of a third feeding area disposed in the third board portion, one end being adjacent to the first board portion, corresponds to the first width (width of 1150a connecting to 1110a and 1110b), and
a width of the other end of the third feeding area, the other end being adjacent to the second board portion, corresponds to the second width (width of 1150a connecting to connector of RF cable).
Jung does not explicitly teach that a first width of a first feeding area disposed in the first board portion is greater than a second width of a second feeding area disposed in the second board portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a tapered transmission line or configure a first width of a first feeding area disposed in the first board portion is greater than a second width of a second feeding area disposed in the second board portion so that the impedance of the antenna is matched with the impedance of the connector for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure a third width of at least part of the third feeding area is smaller than the first width, and is larger than the second width for impedance matching.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the third width to increase as it approaches the first board portion for desired impedance matching.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a first gap between the first feeding area and the plurality of ground areas to be larger than a second gap between the second feeding area and the plurality of ground areas for desired impedance matching.
Regarding claim 11, Jung (Figures 12 and 13a) teaches an antenna assembly comprising:
an antenna positioned in a first area of glass 1040;
a connection module which is positioned in a second area of the glass, and includes a connector (para [0013], [0029], [0159] and [0253]); and
a flexible printed circuit board 1010 which has one surface on which a feeding area (middle lower area connecting to RF cable) and a plurality of ground areas (1150a and 1150b) that are electrically separated from the feeding area are disposed, the flexible printed circuit board comprising:
a first board portion connected to an antenna (top portion of 1010 connecting to 1110a and 1110b);
a second board portion connected to a connector (portion of 1010 connecting to connector of RF cable); and
a third board portion disposed between the first board portion and the second board portion (portion of 1010 between 1110a/1110b and connection to connector of RF cable),
a width of one end of a third feeding area disposed in the third board portion, one end being adjacent to the first board portion, corresponds to the first width (width of 1150a connecting to 1110a and 1110b), and
a width of the other end of the third feeding area, the other end being adjacent to the second board portion, corresponds to the second width (width of 1150a connecting to connector of RF cable).
Jung does not explicitly teach that a first width of a first feeding area disposed in the first board portion is greater than a second width of a second feeding area disposed in the second board portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a tapered transmission line or configure a first width of a first feeding area disposed in the first board portion is greater than a second width of a second feeding area disposed in the second board portion so that the impedance of the antenna is matched with the impedance of the connector for optimum antenna performance.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 11, Jung (Figure 13a, para [0046]) teaches that the connection module comprises a lower housing which is coupled on the glass 1040, and on which the second board portion is seated; and an upper housing which is opposite to the lower housing with respect to the board, and coupled to the lower housing, wherein the connector is positioned between the board and the upper housing.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 11, Jung (Figure 13a) teaches that the antenna is a transparent antenna, the first area (upper area) is a transparent region, and the second area (lower area) is an untransparent region or opaque region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 10, 14 and 15 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, neither Chen nor Jung specifically teaches the configuration wherein the first board portion is disposed on glass, the third board portion is disposed between a housing to which the connector is fixed and a plate, and the plate is disposed between the third board portion and the connector.
Claims 6 and 7 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending, either directly or indirectly, on claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, neither Chen nor Jung specifically teaches that a part of the feeding area having the second width comprises a first portion extending along a first direction; a second portion extending along a second direction different from the first direction; and a third portion formed to be curved so that the first portion and the second portion are connected, wherein a gap between the first portion and the plurality of ground areas and a gap between the third portion and the plurality of ground areas correspond to a certain gap, and a gap between the second portion and the plurality of ground areas is larger than the certain gap.
Claim 9 would have been found allowable for at least the reason for depending on claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, neither Chen nor Jung specifically teaches that the second board portion comprises a signal pinhole through which a signal pin of the connector passes, wherein the second width is larger than a diameter of the signal pinhole.
Regarding claim 14, Jung fails to further teach that the lower housing comprises a round portion that is stepped from the glass and has a curved surface, and at least part of the third board portion is disposed on the curved surface of the round portion.
Regarding claim 15, Jung fails to further teach that a plate which is positioned between the flexible printed circuit board and the connector, and coupled to the flexible printed circuit board, wherein a signal pin of the connector penetrates the plate and the second board portion, and is coupled to the second board portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoon et al (WO 2022/119224 A1) discloses an antenna feed structure with a flexible printed circuit board.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights