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 § 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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a plurality of sub-arrays which are spaced apart from a side of the board by a predetermined distance”, “a plurality of floating radiator arrays arranged with the plurality of sub-arrays on the board and spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance”. The specification and drawings disclose distances (“d”, as shown in figures 4 and 6) between the antenna elements 110 and the floating radiators 210. The specification and drawings also disclose distances (H1 and H2, figures 4 and 6) from the upper sides of the antenna elements and the floating radiators to the upper surface of the board. The drawings (figure 3) also show different distances between the sides of the board and the antenna elements and the floating radiators. While “a plurality of sub-arrays which are spaced apart from a side of the board by a predetermined distance” is shown in figure 3, it is unclear as to how “a plurality of floating radiator arrays arranged with the plurality of sub-arrays on the board and spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance” can be claimed as it is shown that there is a different distance between the sides of the board and the a plurality of floating radiator arrays, not the same “predetermined distance”. It’s unclear if the applicant is meaning to claim the distances from the side of the board to the individual elements as shown in figure 3 which are different distances and not the same “predetermined distance”, or if they are claiming the distance from the surface of the board to the upper side of the individual elements as shown in figures 4 and 6, or if they are claiming the distances between the adjacent elements.
Claims 4 and 14 also recite “wherein an upper side of the antenna array is spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance”. As explained above, it is not clear as to what the predetermined distance is, and if this is the same predetermined distance from claim 1 or another distance, and therefore this claim is also rejected.
Claims 5 and 15 also recite “wherein upper sides of the plurality of floating radiator arrays are spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance”. As explained above, it is not clear as to what the predetermined distance is, and if this is the same predetermined distance from claim 1 or another distance, and therefore this claim is also rejected.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 11, respectively, and also rejected.
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)(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.
(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 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (US 2019/0166686 hereby referred as Jo).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Jo teaches the following:
an antenna module (figures 2/10, figure 10 which is a close up top view of a certain section of an array such as the one shown in figure 2) comprising:
a board (element 1051, figure 10, or element 351, figure 2);
an antenna array (elements 301, figure 2; elements 701, figure 10) including a plurality of sub-arrays which are spaced apart from a side of the board by a predetermined distance, wherein each sub-array includes antenna elements arranged in a line (as shown in figures 2 and 10); and
a plurality of floating radiator (elements 321, figures 2-3; elements 1061, figure 10) arrays arranged with the plurality of sub-arrays on the board and spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance, wherein each floating radiator array includes floating radiators arranged in a line (as shown in figures 2 and 10),
wherein a number of floating radiators included in the floating radiators arranged in a line is greater than a number of antenna elements included in the antenna elements arranged in a line (as shown in figures 2 and 10), and
wherein current of each of the plurality of floating radiator arrays is induced by signals radiated by the antenna array (paragraph [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the antenna module comprises feeding circuitry (element 341, figure 2) configured to supply electrical signals to the antenna array, and
wherein the electrical signals cause the antenna array to radiate the signals (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein an upper side of the antenna array (elements 301 or 401-403, figures 2-4; elements 701, figure 10) is spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance (as shown in figures 2-4 and 10).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein upper sides of the plurality of floating radiator arrays (elements 321, figures 2-4; elements 1061, figure 10) are spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance (as shown in figures 2-4 and 10).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein each floating radiator of the plurality of floating radiator arrays has a capacitance value and first to fourth inductance values, wherein the capacitance value and the first to fourth inductance values are determined according to at least one of a horizontal length and a vertical length of a corresponding floating radiator, and wherein a phase of an electromagnetic wave radiated from the corresponding floating radiator is determined based on at least one of the capacitance value, or first to fourth inductance values (the floating radiator 1061 has the same square ring structure as the disclosed floating radiator, and therefore would inherently have these inductance and capacitance values, see MPEP 2114 section I; and MPEP 2112.01, sections I and II).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of floating radiator arrays are disposed for reducing surface waves of the antenna array induced by the signals radiated by the antenna array (paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein each floating radiator (element 1061, figure 10) of the plurality of floating radiator arrays has a ring shape (as shown in figure 10).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein a horizontal length and a vertical length of each floating radiator corresponds to a quarter of a wavelength of each signal of the signals radiated by the antenna array (paragraph [0065] and [0093]).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Jo teaches the following:
an electronic device (element 101, figure 1) comprising:
at least one processor (element 190, figure 1, paragraph [0051]);
communication circuitry (element 341, figure 2) connected to the at least one processor; and
an antenna module (figures 2/10, figure 10 which is a close up top view of a certain section of an array such as the one shown in figure 2) connected to the communication circuity (paragraph [0070]);
wherein the antenna module comprises:
a board (element 1051, figure 10, or element 351, figure 2);
an antenna array (elements 301, figure 2; elements 701, figure 10) including a plurality of sub-arrays which are spaced apart from a side of the board by a predetermined distance, wherein each sub-array includes antenna elements arranged in a line (as shown in figures 2 and 10); and
a plurality of floating radiator (elements 321, figures 2-3; elements 1061, figure 10) arrays arranged with the plurality of sub-arrays on the board and spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance, wherein each floating radiator array includes floating radiators arranged in a line (as shown in figures 2 and 10),
wherein a number of floating radiators included in the floating radiators arranged in a line is greater than a number of antenna elements included in the antenna elements arranged in a line (as shown in figures 2 and 10), and
wherein current of each of the plurality of floating radiator arrays is induced by signals radiated by the antenna array (paragraph [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein the antenna module comprises feeding circuitry (element 331, figures 2-4) configured to supply electrical signals to the antenna array, and
wherein the electrical signals cause the antenna array to radiate the signals (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein an upper side of the antenna array (elements 301 or 401-403, figures 2-4; elements 701, figure 10) is spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance (as shown in figures 2-4 and 10).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein upper sides of the plurality of floating radiator arrays (elements 321, figures 2-4; elements 1061, figure 10) are spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance (as shown in figures 2-4 and 10).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein each floating radiator of the plurality of floating radiator arrays has a capacitance value and first to fourth inductance values, wherein the capacitance value and the first to fourth inductance values are determined according to at least one of a horizontal length and a vertical length of a corresponding floating radiator, and wherein a phase of an electromagnetic wave radiated from the corresponding floating radiator is determined based on at least one of the capacitance value, or first to fourth inductance values (the floating radiator 1061 has the same square ring structure as the disclosed floating radiator, and therefore would inherently have these inductance and capacitance values, see MPEP 2114 section I; and MPEP 2112.01, sections I and II).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of floating radiator arrays are disposed for reducing surface waves of the antenna array induced by the signals radiated by the antenna array (paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein each floating radiator (element 1061, figure 10) of the plurality of floating radiator arrays has a ring shape (as shown in figure 10).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Jo as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein a horizontal length and a vertical length of each floating radiator corresponds to a quarter of a wavelength of each signal of the signals radiated by the antenna array (paragraph [0065] and [0093]).
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, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0083613, hereby referred as Liu).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Liu teaches the following:
an antenna module comprising:
a board (paragraph [0048]);
an antenna array (elements 21, figures 1) including a plurality of sub-arrays (elements 2, figures 1) which are spaced apart from a side of the board by a predetermined distance, wherein each sub-array includes antenna elements arranged in a line (as shown in figures 1); and
a plurality of floating radiators (elements 31, figures 1) arranged with the plurality of sub-arrays on the board and spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance, wherein each floating radiator array includes floating radiators arranged in a line (as shown in figure 1),
wherein a number of floating radiators included in the floating radiators arranged in a line is greater than a number of antenna elements included in the antenna elements arranged in a line (as shown in figures 1), and
wherein current of the floating radiator arrays is induced by signals radiated by the antenna array (paragraph [0051]).
Liu does not explicitly teach a plurality of floating radiator arrays. However, Liu does teach that there can be more than two plurality of sub-arrays (paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the floating radiators of Liu to include a plurality of floating radiator arrays between each sub-array when there are more than two sub-arrays (paragraphs [0047]-[0048]) in order to cancel out the parasitic radiated electromagnetic wave generated by the adjacent radiating sub-arrays which reduces a horizontal beamwidth of a multi-array antenna, and further allows a directivity pattern index of the multi-array antenna to meet a requirement of a wireless communications system (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Liu as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of floating radiator arrays are arranged alternatively with the plurality of sub-arrays (as shown in figures 1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Liu teaches the following:
an electronic device comprising:
an antenna module (figure 1);
wherein the antenna module comprises:
a board (paragraph [0048]);
an antenna array (elements 21, figures 1) including a plurality of sub-arrays (elements 2, figures 1) which are spaced apart from a side of the board by a predetermined distance, wherein each sub-array includes antenna elements arranged in a line (as shown in figures 1); and
a plurality of floating radiators (elements 31, figures 1) arranged with the plurality of sub-arrays on the board and spaced apart from the side of the board by the predetermined distance, wherein each floating radiator array includes floating radiators arranged in a line (as shown in figure 1),
wherein a number of floating radiators included in the floating radiators arranged in a line is greater than a number of antenna elements included in the antenna elements arranged in a line (as shown in figures 1), and
wherein current of the floating radiator arrays is induced by signals radiated by the antenna array (paragraph [0051]).
Liu does not explicitly teach a plurality of floating radiator arrays. However, Liu does teach that there can be more than two plurality of sub-arrays (paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the floating radiators of Liu to include a plurality of floating radiator arrays between each sub-array when there are more than two sub-arrays (paragraphs [0047]-[0048]) in order to cancel out the parasitic radiated electromagnetic wave generated by the adjacent radiating sub-arrays which reduces a horizontal beamwidth of a multi-array antenna, and further allows a directivity pattern index of the multi-array antenna to meet a requirement of a wireless communications system (paragraph [0051]).
Liu also does not explicitly teach that the electronic device comprises at least one processor; communication circuitry connected to the at least one processor; and the antenna module connected to the communication circuity. However, it is well-known in the antenna art that an antenna on a reflector such as the one disclosed in Liu can have communication circuitry connected to the antenna module to allow the proper signals to be fed/received from the antenna module, and a processor connected to the communication circuitry to allow the processing and control of the communication circuitry and antenna module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Liu to include at least one processor; communication circuitry connected to the at least one processor; and the antenna module connected to the communication circuity as it is well-known in the antenna art that communication circuitry is needed to connect to the antenna module to allow the proper signals to be fed/received from the antenna module, and for a processor to be connected to the communication circuitry to allow the processing and control of the communication circuitry and antenna module.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Liu as referred in claim 11 teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of floating radiator arrays are arranged alternatively with the plurality of sub-arrays (as shown in figures 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sudo et al. (US 2021/0126366, figure 9), Jong et al. (US 2019/0020100, figure 2), and Keyrouz et al. (US 2020/0076072, figures 3) could also read on at least the independent claims. Liu could also be used to reject additional dependent claims. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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
