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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozzolino et al. (US20170201027; hereinafter Cozzolino).
Regarding independent claim 1, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “An antenna device, comprising: a base (area with attachment holes) having a mounting end; a standing member (478/480) connected to and standing on the base; an arm comprising a first arm and a second arm (two arms on either side of gap 476), the arm being connected to the standing member (se fig. 12); and a first radiation portion comprising a first part (38L1) and a second part (40L1) that are symmetrical to each other, the first part of the first radiation portion being connected to the first arm, and the second part of the first radiation portion being connected to the second arm (see fig. 12); wherein the arm and the base are connected to different positions of the standing member, such that there is a distance between the arm and the base in a direction perpendicular to the base (see fig. 12); and a second radiation portion, the second radiation portion comprising a first part (38L2) and a second part (40L2) that are symmetrical to each other, wherein the first part of the second radiation portion is connected to the first arm, and the second part of the second radiation portion is connected to the second arm (see fig. 12), wherein the first part and the second part of the first radiation portion are bent toward the mounting end (see fig. 12)”.
Cozzolino fig. 12 does not disclose “the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion are bent toward the mounting end”.
However, Cozzolino figs. 10-11 and ¶[0059] teach “the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion are bent toward the mounting end (figs. 10-11 show second radiators (42j/k1) bending towards a mounting point ¶[0059]; For example, a polymorphic antenna may be bent to fit into the dielectric housing of a communication device within which the antenna is operative)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of figs. 10-11 and make Cozzolino’s antenna device wherein the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion are bent toward the mounting end, in order to make the device more compact or to fit to a housing.
Regarding claim 3, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein: the first part of the first radiation portion and the first part of the second radiation portion are spaced apart by a first spacing in a direction connecting each other via the first arm; and the second part of the first radiation portion and the second part of the second radiation portion are spaced apart by a second spacing in a direction connecting each other via the second arm (see fig. 12 radiation portions are separated by a gap)”.
Regarding claim 4, Cozzolino discloses the antenna device of claim 3 as shown previously.
Cozzolino does not directly disclose “wherein the first spacing and the second spacing are each 5 millimeters (mm) or more”.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art can see from analyzing fig. 10 and ¶[0130] “Typical overall dimensions of template 308 are approximately 32 mm×23 mm, and antenna 300 when formed into its three-dimensional shape occupies a volume having approximate dimensions of 27 mm×13 mm×5 mm. The overall dimensions of template 308, and of the dimensions and/or locations and/or characteristics of the sections comprising antenna 300, may be altered, generally as described above with reference to antennas 50 and 70” that Cozzolino does teach a spacing of at least 5mm for the first and second spacing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of fig. 10 and make Cozzolino’s antenna device wherein the first spacing and the second spacing are each 5 millimeters (mm) or more, in order to produce the desired electromagnetic characteristic for the antenna.
Furthermore, 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).
Regarding claim 5, Cozzolino discloses the antenna device of claim 1 as shown previously.
Cozzolino does not directly disclose “wherein the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion each comprise a bending part, and the bending parts are bent into an L-shape at an end of the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion, respectively”.
However, Cozzolino teaches “wherein the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion each comprise a bending part, and the bending parts are bent into an L-shape at an end of the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion, respectively (see fig. 10 elements 38J2 and 40J2)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of fig. 10 and make Cozzolino’s antenna device wherein the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion each comprise a bending part, and the bending parts are bent into an L-shape at an end of the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion, respectively, in order to produce the desired electromagnetic characteristic for the antenna.
Regarding claim 6, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising a slot (476) located in the standing member”.
Regarding claim 7, Cozzolino discloses the antenna device of claim 6 as shown previously.
Cozzolino does not directly disclose “wherein in the direction perpendicular to the base, a length of the standing member is 10 millimeters (mm) or more, and a length of the slot is 5 mm or more”.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art can see from analyzing fig. 10 and ¶[0130] “Typical overall dimensions of template 308 are approximately 32 mm×23 mm, and antenna 300 when formed into its three-dimensional shape occupies a volume having approximate dimensions of 27 mm×13 mm×5 mm. The overall dimensions of template 308, and of the dimensions and/or locations and/or characteristics of the sections comprising antenna 300, may be altered, generally as described above with reference to antennas 50 and 70” that Cozzolino does teach a length of the standing member is 10 millimeters (mm) or more, and a length of the slot is 5 mm or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of fig. 10 and make Cozzolino’s antenna device with a length of the standing member is 10 millimeters (mm) or more, and a length of the slot is 5 mm or more, in order to produce the desired electromagnetic characteristic for the antenna.
Furthermore, 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).
Regarding claim 8, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 6, wherein the first arm and the second arm are parallel to each other, and a gap between the first arm and the second arm is equal to a width of the slot (see fig. 12)”.
Regarding claim 9, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein: the first arm and the second arm are cantilevered from the standing member; the first part of the first radiation portion is cantilevered from the first arm; and the second part of the first radiation portion is cantilevered from the second arm (see fig. 12 all radiation arms are cantilevered)”.
Regarding claim 10, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the first part and the second part of the first radiation portion each form a first angle with a Z-axis that is perpendicular to the base, and the first angle is between 30 degrees and 90 degrees (forms a 90 degree angle)”.
Regarding claim 11, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the first part and the second part of the second radiation portion each form a second angle with a Z-axis that is perpendicular to the base, and the second angle is between 30 degrees and 90 degrees (forms a 90 degree angle)”.
Regarding claim 12, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising a grounding terminal (36L) and a feeding terminal (34L), wherein the grounding terminal is connected to the first arm, and the feeding terminal is connected to the second arm (see fig. 12)”.
Regarding claim 14, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein: the first radiation portion operates in a first frequency band; and the second radiation portion operates in a second frequency band that is different from the first frequency band (¶[0013]; In some embodiments the antenna comprises two or more dipoles, so that the antenna is operative at two or more wavelengths or wavelength bands. These embodiments may comprise single or multiple feeds)”.
Regarding claim 15, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 14, wherein: a total length of the first radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength corresponding to the first frequency band; and a total length of the second radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength corresponding to the second frequency band (¶[0065]; A linear dipole operating at 2.5 GHz, in an environment where the dielectric constant is effectively unity, typically has a total length of approximately 60 mm, corresponding to half the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 2.5 GHz in free space)”.
Regarding claim 16, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “A communication apparatus, comprising: a bottom plate (616); and the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein: the base is mounted on the bottom plate through the mounting ends (base with connecting holes)”.
Regarding claim 17, Cozzolino discloses “The communication apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising a top plate (611) located above the antenna device”.
Cozzolino does not directly disclose “wherein a distance between the top plate and the antenna device is 6 millimeters (mm) or more”.
However, Cozzolino teaches in ¶[0161]; “Also by way of example, transceiver 614 and antenna 130 are assumed to be mounted on a printed circuit board 616, and the antenna is assumed to be oriented so that its radiation is mainly vertically polarized. However, it will be understood that any other of the antennas described herein above may replace antenna 130, and be coupled to transceiver 614 by feed 615. It will also be understood that the antenna installed within enclosure 611 may be oriented in any convenient orientation, to give a desired polarization”. This means that the antenna can be installed in such an orientation as to leave at least a 6mm gap between the antenna and the top plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Cozzolino and make Cozzolino’s antenna device wherein a distance between the top plate and the antenna device is 6 millimeters (mm) or more, in order to produce the desired electromagnetic characteristic for the antenna.
Furthermore, 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).
Regarding claim 18, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The communication apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising a second radiation portion, the second radiation portion comprising a first part (38L2) and a second part (40L2) that are symmetrical to each other, wherein the first part of the second radiation portion is connected to the first arm, and the second part of the second radiation portion is connected to the second arm (see fig. 12)”.
Regarding claim 19, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The communication apparatus according to claim 16, further comprising a slot (476) located in the standing member”.
Regarding claim 20, Cozzolino (fig. 12) discloses “The communication apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the first radiation portion forms a first angle with a Z-axis that is perpendicular to the base, the second radiation portion forms a second angle with the Z-axis, the first angle is between 30 degrees and 90 degrees, and the second angle is between 30 degrees and 90 degrees (both are set at a 90 degree angle)”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozzolino in view of Vladislav et al. (WO2020181774; hereinafter Vladislav).
Regarding claim 13, Cozzolino discloses the antenna device of claim 1 as shown previously.
Cozzolino does not disclose “further comprising a first matching protrusion and a second matching protrusion for adjusting impedance matching, wherein the first matching protrusion is connected to the first arm, and the second matching protrusion is connected to the second arm”.
However, Vladislav teaches “further comprising a first matching protrusion (27a) and a second matching protrusion (28a) for adjusting impedance matching, wherein the first matching protrusion is connected to the first arm, and the second matching protrusion is connected to the second arm (both are used for matching in the antenna)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Vladislav and make Cozzolino’s antenna device further comprising a first matching protrusion and a second matching protrusion for adjusting impedance matching, wherein the first matching protrusion is connected to the first arm, and the second matching protrusion is connected to the second arm, in order to improve the antennas electrical characteristics and better match the signals.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights