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 06/30/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2025 has 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 features canceled from the claims:
Claims 1, 9 and 14 recite “wherein, a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub; and a frequency of a resonance excited by the second parasitic stub is less than the frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub” but drawings do not show this limitation. Examiner thinks Antenna 3 in figs. 8, 10 is when there are both first and second parasitic stubs and “Main resonance” is the resonating frequency of the main stub, but it is not clear which frequencies belong to first and second parasitic stubs to support this limitation.
Claims 3 recites “wherein the resonances in the first mode and the second mode comprise any two of a resonance in a 1/4λ mode, a resonance in 1/2λ mode, a resonance in a 3/4λ mode, or a resonance in a λ mode, wherein λ is a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the antenna” but there is no drawings showing how the current flows and which scenario the λ mode would occur.
Similar objections would be applied to claims 8, 17 and 19.
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“Antenna 1”, “Antenna 2”, “Antenna 3”, “G1 parasitic”, “G2 parasitic”, “Main resonance” in fig. 8.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show as described in the specification:
Para [0118]: “First, refer to FIG. 18a. A current flows from the fifth end h of the second parasitic stub 30 to the sixth end i” but fig. 18a shows the current flows from the fifth end h of the second parasitic stub 30 to the ground point j.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para [0094]: “As shown in FIG. 14b, a current flows from a point B of the main stub 10 to the first end a and the second end b, and the point B is a point with a strongest electric field. The foregoing current excites the 3/4 mode of the second parasitic stub 30. A resonance in the 3/4 mode excited by the main stub 10 is at 2.7 GHz” should read “the main stub 10”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 recites “a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub” but para [0072] stated “the differential mode excited by the first parasitic stub 20 is at 2.55 GHz” which is not greater that “A resonance in the 1/2 mode excited by the circuit on the main stub 10 is at 3.3 GHz”, para [0073].
Claims 3 recites “wherein the resonances in the first mode and the second mode comprise any two of a resonance in a 1/4λ mode, a resonance in 1/2λ mode, a resonance in a 3/4λ mode, or a resonance in a λ mode, wherein λ is a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the antenna” but most of the spec mention about the 1/4 mode, 1/2 mode and 3/4 mode except para [0027] and [0091] so it is not clear if the 1/4λ mode, 1/2λ mode, 3/4λ mode are the same or different to the 1/4 mode, 1/2 mode, 3/4 mode and the spec does not disclose how the current flows and which scenario the λ mode would occur.
Similar objections would be applied to claims 8, 17 and 19.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preambles of claims 1, 9 and 14 are missing a colon “:” after the word comprising 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a gap between the second end and the third end" in lines 10-11 and “the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via the gap between the first end and the fifth end” in lines 12-13 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear because the gap the second end and the third end and the gap between the first end and the fifth end are different gaps which fig. 5 shows the gap between b and e and between a and h. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as "the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a first gap between the second end and the third end" and “the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via the a second gap between the first end and the fifth end”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub; and a frequency of a resonance excited by the second parasitic stub is less than the frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub” in lines 16-18 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what frequency and resonance mean. For the purpose of examination, based on para [0066]-[0074], Examiner interprets the claim as “a resonating frequency”.
Similar rejections would be applied to claims 9 and 14.
Claims 2-8, 10-13 and 15-20 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1, 9 and 14 are subsequently rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the first parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a first mode, and a first current flows from the fourth end of the first parasitic stub to the third end in a first mode; and the second parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a second mode, and a second current flows from the fifth end of the second parasitic stub to the sixth end in the second mode” in lines 1-6 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if these resonances are the same or different to the resonances recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Similar rejection would be applied to claims 7, 16, 18.
Claims 3 recites “wherein the resonances in the first mode and the second mode comprise any two of a resonance in a 1/4λ mode, a resonance in 1/2λ mode, a resonance in a 3/4λ mode, or a resonance in a λ mode, wherein λ is a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the antenna” in lines 1-6 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how this operating frequency relates to the frequencies recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the fourth ground point on the second parasitic stub and a fifth ground point on the first parasitic stub because some of the 1/4 mode, 1/2λ mode, 3/4λ mode of the first and second parasitic stubs require fourth and fifth ground points (figs. 12a-12f, 14a-14c).
Similar rejections would be applied to claims 8, 17 and 19.
Claims 3 recites “wherein the resonances in the first mode and the second mode comprise any two of a resonance in a 1/4λ mode, a resonance in 1/2λ mode, a resonance in a 3/4λ mode, or a resonance in a λ mode, wherein λ is a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the antenna” in lines 1-6 which renders the claim indefinite. This limitation conflicts with claim 2 “a first current flows from the fourth end of the first parasitic stub to the third end in a first mode” (para [0107]: The current excites the 1/4 mode of the first parasitic stub 20) and “a second current flows from the fifth end of the second parasitic stub to the sixth end in the second mode” (para [0118]: The current excites the 1/4 mode of the second parasitic stub 30), therefore, the first and second mode cannot be other modes. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Similar rejections would be applied to claims 19.
Claim 9 recites “the first parasitic stub and the second parasitic stub are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub” in lines 1-6 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 14 and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,840. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the rationale detailed below.
19/338,887
US 12,444,840
Claim 1
Claim 1
An antenna, comprising a main stub, a first parasitic stub, and a second parasitic stub,
An antenna comprising:
a main stub,
a first parasitic stub, and
a second parasitic stub,
wherein
the main stub comprises a first end and a second end, a feed point and a first ground point are disposed on the main stub, the feed point is closer to the second end than the first end, and the first ground point is closer to the first end than the second end;
wherein the main stub comprises a first end and a second end, a feed point is disposed between the first end and the second end, a first ground point is disposed on the main stub, and the first ground point is closer to the first end than the second end;
the first parasitic stub and the second parasitic stub are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub;
the first parasitic stub and the second parasitic stub are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub;
the first parasitic stub comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, wherein the second end and the third end are free ends, and the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a gap between the second end and the third end by electric field coupling; and wherein the first end is a ground end, the fifth end is a free end, and the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via the gap between the first end and the fifth end by electric field and magnetic field coupling;
the first parasitic stub comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a first gap between the second end and the third end, the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a second gap between the first end and the fifth end;
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub; and
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub, and is at a location that is between the third end and the fourth end;
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub,
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub, and is at a location that is closer to the fifth end than the sixth end;
a fourth ground point is disposed on a side that is of the second parasitic stub and that is closer to the sixth end than the fifth end;
a fifth ground point is disposed on a side that is of the first parasitic stub and that is closer to the fourth end than the third end; and
wherein, a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub; and a frequency of a resonance excited by the second parasitic stub is less than the frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub.
wherein a second resonating frequency of the first parasitic stub is greater than a first resonating frequency of the main stub; and a third resonating frequency of the second parasitic stub is less than the first resonating frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub.
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 9
Claim 1
An antenna, comprising a main stub, and a first parasitic stub,
An antenna comprising:
a main stub,
a first parasitic stub, and
a second parasitic stub,
wherein the main stub comprises a first end and a second end, a feed point and a first ground point are disposed on the main stub, the feed point is closer to the second end than the first end, and the first ground point is closer to the first end than the second end;
wherein the main stub comprises a first end and a second end, a feed point is disposed between the first end and the second end, a first ground point is disposed on the main stub, and the first ground point is closer to the first end than the second end;
the first parasitic stub and the second parasitic stub are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub;
the first parasitic stub and the second parasitic stub are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub;
the first parasitic stub comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, wherein the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a gap between the second end and the third end; and wherein the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via the gap between the first end and the fifth end;
the first parasitic stub comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a first gap between the second end and the third end, the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a second gap between the first end and the fifth end;
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub; and
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub, and is at a location that is between the third end and the fourth end;
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub,
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub, and is at a location that is closer to the fifth end than the sixth end;
a fourth ground point is disposed on a side that is of the second parasitic stub and that is closer to the sixth end than the fifth end;
a fifth ground point is disposed on a side that is of the first parasitic stub and that is closer to the fourth end than the third end; and
wherein, a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub; and a frequency of a resonance excited by the second parasitic stub is less than the frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub,
wherein a second resonating frequency of the first parasitic stub is greater than a first resonating frequency of the main stub; and a third resonating frequency of the second parasitic stub is less than the first resonating frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub.
and wherein the first parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a first mode, and a first current flows from the fourth end of the first parasitic stub to the third end in the first mode; and
the second parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a second mode; and a second current flows from the fifth end of the second parasitic stub to the sixth end in the second mode.
Although US 12,444,840 does not explicitly disclose the last limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that there would be resonances in the first and second parasitic stub and the currents would flow from one end to another of the first and second parasitic stubs.
19/338,887
US 12,444,840
Claim 14
Claim 9
A mobile terminal, comprising a housing and an antenna disposed in the housing, the housing comprises a metal frame, the antenna comprising a main stub, a first parasitic stub, and a second parasitic stub, each of the main stub, the first parasitic stub, and the second parasitic stub is a part of the metal frame, wherein
A mobile terminal comprising: a housing and an antenna disposed in the housing, wherein the housing comprises a metal frame, the antenna comprises a main stub, a first parasitic stub, and a second parasitic stub, wherein each of the main stub, the first parasitic stub, and the second parasitic stub is a part of the metal frame,
the main stub comprises a first end and a second end, a feed point and a first ground point are disposed on the main stub, the feed point is closer to the second end than the first end, and the first ground point is closer to the first end than the second end;
wherein the main stub comprises a first end and a second end, a feed point is disposed between the first end and the second end, a first ground point is disposed on the main stub, and the first ground point is closer to the first end than the second end;
the first parasitic stub and the second parasitic stub are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub;
the first parasitic stub and the second parasitic stub are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub;
the first parasitic stub comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, wherein the second end and the third end are free ends, and the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a gap between the second end and the third end by electric field coupling; and wherein the first end is a ground end, the fifth end is a free end, and the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via the gap between the first end and the fifth end by electric field and magnetic field coupling;
the first parasitic stub comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via a first gap between the second end and the third end, the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via second gap between the first end and the fifth end;
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub; and
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub, and is at a location that is between the third end and the fourth end;
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub,
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub, and is at a location that is closer to the fifth end than the sixth end;
a fourth ground point is disposed on a side that is of the second parasitic stub and that is closer to the sixth end than the fifth end; a fifth ground point is disposed on a side that is of the first parasitic stub and that is closer to the fourth end than the third end; and
wherein, a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub; and a frequency of a resonance excited by the second parasitic stub is less than the frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub.
wherein a second resonating frequency of the first parasitic stub is greater than a first resonating frequency of the main stub; and a third resonating frequency of the second parasitic stub is less than the first resonating frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub.
Claim 16
Claim 11
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al, US-20190348762-A1 (hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Chou discloses the following:
an antenna, comprising a main stub (A1, fig. 5A), a first parasitic stub (A4), and a second parasitic stub (A3), wherein
the main stub comprises a first end and a second end (fig. 5A below), a feed point (B) and a first ground point (E) are disposed on the main stub, the feed point (B) is closer to the second end than the first end (fig. 5A), and the first ground point (E) is closer to the first end than the second end (fig. 5A);
the first parasitic stub (A4) and the second parasitic stub (A3) are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub (A1);
the first parasitic stub (A4) comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub (A3) comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, wherein the second end and the third end are free ends (fig. 5A), and the first parasitic stub (A4) is coupled to the main stub (A1) via a gap (Gap1) between the second end and the third end by electric field coupling; and wherein the first end is a ground end (fig. 5A), the fifth end is a free end (fig. 5A), and the second parasitic stub (A3) is coupled to the main stub via the gap (Gap2) between the first end and the fifth end by electric field and magnetic field coupling;
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub (fig. 5A); and
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub (fig. 5A).
Although Chou does not explicitly disclose a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub; and a frequency of a resonance excited by the second parasitic stub is less than the frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub, Chou discloses the length of the main stub, the first and second parasitic stubs can be adjusted to support different frequency bands (para [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frequencies of the main stub, the first and second parasitic stubs of the antenna taught in Chou to be 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 frequency depending on the requirements of the application (Chou, para [0031]).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the first parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a first mode, and a first current flows from the fourth end of the first parasitic stub to the third end in a first mode; and the second parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a second mode, and a second current flows from the fifth end of the second parasitic stub to the sixth end in the second mode, it is construed by one of ordinary skill in that art that the first and second parasitic stubs will be excited by coupling to the main stub through the gaps, therefore there would be currents flowing from one end to another.
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 3, as best understood, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the resonances in the first mode and the second mode comprise any two of a resonance in a 1/4λ mode, a resonance in 1/2λ mode, a resonance in a 3/4λ mode, or a resonance in a λ mode, wherein λ is a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the antenna, the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide different modes as claimed to the antenna taught in Chou for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth and frequency bands of the antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 4, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the first current excites the 1/4 mode of the first parasitic stub; and the second current excites the 1/4 mode of the second parasitic stub, the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide the currents of the antenna taught in Chou excite 1/4 mode as claimed to for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth and frequency bands of the antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 5, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein a main current flows from the first ground point of the main stub to the second end, and the main current excites the 1/4 mode of the main stub, , the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide the main current of the antenna taught in Chou excite 1/4 mode as claimed to for the purpose of achieving the desired radiating characteristic depending on the requirement of the application.
Regarding claim 6, Chou discloses wherein the second ground point is closer to the fourth end than the third end; and the third ground point is closer to the sixth end than the fifth end (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Chou discloses wherein the first parasitic stub is a parasitic stub configured to excite a resonance in a first mode, the second parasitic stub is a parasitic stub configured to excite a resonance in a second mode, and the first mode is the same as the second mode.
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, as best understood, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein in the first mode or the second mode is any one of: 1/4λ mode, 1/2λ mode, 3/4λ mode, or λ mode, wherein k is a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the antenna, the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide different modes as claimed to the antenna taught in Chou for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth and frequency bands of the antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Chou discloses the following:
an antenna, comprising a main stub (A1, fig. 5A), a first parasitic stub (A4), wherein
the main stub comprises a first end and a second end (fig. 5A above), a feed point (B) and a first ground point (E) are disposed on the main stub, the feed point (B) is closer to the second end than the first end (fig. 5A), and the first ground point (E) is closer to the first end than the second end (fig. 5A);
the first parasitic stub (A4) and the second parasitic stub (A3) are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub (A1);
the first parasitic stub (A4) comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub (A3) comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, wherein the first parasitic stub (A4) is coupled to the main stub (A1) via a gap (Gap1) between the second end and the third end; and wherein the second parasitic stub (A3) is coupled to the main stub via the gap (Gap2) between the first end and the fifth end;
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub (fig. 5A); and
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub (fig. 5A).
Although Chou does not explicitly disclose a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub; and a frequency of a resonance excited by the second parasitic stub is less than the frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub, Chou discloses the length of the main stub, the first and second parasitic stubs can be adjusted to support different frequency bands (para [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frequencies of the main stub, the first and second parasitic stubs of the antenna taught in Chou to be 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 frequency depending on the requirements of the application (Chou, para [0031]).
Although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the first parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a first mode, and a first current flows from the fourth end of the first parasitic stub to the third end in a first mode; and the second parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a second mode, and a second current flows from the fifth end of the second parasitic stub to the sixth end in the second mode, it is construed by one of ordinary skill in that art that the first and second parasitic stubs will be excited by coupling to the main stub through the gaps, therefore there would be currents flowing from one end to another.
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 10, Chou discloses wherein the second end and the third end are free ends, and wherein the first end is a ground end. the fifth end is a free end (fig. 5A above).
Although Chou does not explicitly disclose the first parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via the gap between the second end and the third end by electric field coupling and the second parasitic stub is coupled to the main stub via the gap between the first end and the fifth end by electric field and magnetic field coupling, the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide electric field and magnetic field coupling as claimed to the antenna taught in Chou for the purpose of coupling the first and second parasitic stubs to the main stub to increase the bandwidth and frequency bands of the antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 11, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the first current excites the 1/4 mode of the first parasitic stub; and the second current excites the 1/4 mode of the second parasitic stub, the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide the currents of the antenna taught in Chou excite 1/4 mode as claimed to for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth and frequency bands of the antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 12, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein a main current flows from the first ground point of the main stub to the second end, and the main current excites the 1/4 mode of the main stub, , the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide the main current of the antenna taught in Chou excite 1/4 mode as claimed to for the purpose of achieving the desired radiating characteristic depending on the requirement of the application.
Regarding claim 13, Chou discloses wherein the second ground point is closer to the fourth end than the third end; and the third ground point is closer to the sixth end than the fifth end (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Chou discloses the following:
a mobile terminal, comprising a housing (para [0016]) and an antenna disposed in the housing, the housing comprises a metal frame (para [0050]: the branch units A1 and A2 and the parasitic branch units A3 and A4 form one portion of the frame which is metal, see para [0003]), the antenna comprising a main stub (A1, fig. 5A), a first parasitic stub (A4), and a second parasitic stub (A3), each of the main stub, the first parasitic stub, and the second parasitic stub is a part of the metal frame (para [0050]), wherein
the main stub comprises a first end and a second end (fig. 5A above), a feed point (B) and a first ground point (E) are disposed on the main stub, the feed point (B) is closer to the second end than the first end (fig. 5A), and the first ground point (E) is closer to the first end than the second end (fig. 5A);
the first parasitic stub (A4) and the second parasitic stub (A3) are respectively arranged on two sides of the main stub (A1);
the first parasitic stub (A4) comprises a third end and a fourth end, the second parasitic stub (A3) comprises a fifth end and a sixth end, wherein the second end and the third end are free ends (fig. 5A), and the first parasitic stub (A4) is coupled to the main stub (A1) via a gap (Gap1) between the second end and the third end by electric field coupling; and wherein the first end is a ground end (fig. 5A), the fifth end is a free end (fig. 5A), and the second parasitic stub (A3) is coupled to the main stub via the gap (Gap2) between the first end and the fifth end by electric field and magnetic field coupling;
a second ground point is disposed on the first parasitic stub (fig. 5A); and
a third ground point is disposed on the second parasitic stub (fig. 5A).
Although Chou does not explicitly disclose a frequency of a resonance excited by the first parasitic stub is greater than a frequency of a resonance excited by the main stub; and a frequency of a resonance excited by the second parasitic stub is less than the frequency of the resonance excited by the main stub, Chou discloses the length of the main stub, the first and second parasitic stubs can be adjusted to support different frequency bands (para [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frequencies of the main stub, the first and second parasitic stubs of the antenna taught in Chou to be 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 frequency depending on the requirements of the application (Chou, para [0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Chou discloses wherein the second ground point is closer to the fourth end than the third end; and the third ground point is closer to the sixth end than the fifth end (fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Chou discloses wherein the first parasitic stub is a parasitic stub configured to excite a resonance in a first mode, the second parasitic stub is a parasitic stub configured to excite a resonance in a second mode, and the first mode is the same as the second mode.
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 17, as best understood, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein in the first mode or the second mode is any one of: 1/4λ mode, 1/2λ mode, 3/4λ mode, or λ mode, wherein k is a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the antenna, the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide different modes as claimed to the antenna taught in Chou for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth and frequency bands of the antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the first parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a first mode, and a first current flows from the fourth end of the first parasitic stub to the third end in a first mode; and the second parasitic stub is configured to excite a resonance in a second mode, and a second current flows from the fifth end of the second parasitic stub to the sixth end in the second mode, it is construed by one of ordinary skill in that art that the first and second parasitic stubs will be excited by coupling to the main stub through the gaps, therefore there would be currents flowing from one end to another.
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 19, as best understood, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the resonances in the first mode and the second mode comprise any two of a resonance in a 1/4λ mode, a resonance in 1/2λ mode, a resonance in a 3/4λ mode, or a resonance in a λ mode, wherein λ is a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the antenna, the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide different modes as claimed to the antenna taught in Chou for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth and frequency bands of the antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Regarding claim 20, although Chou does not explicitly disclose wherein the first current excites the 1/4 mode of the first parasitic stub; and the second current excites the 1/4 mode of the second parasitic stub, the antenna taught in Chou has the same structure, it is implied that it would also have these limitations.
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 provide the currents of the antenna taught in Chou excite 1/4 mode as claimed to for the purpose of increasing the bandwidth and frequency bands of the antenna in order to improve the antenna’s performance.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Kim et al, US-20170047637-A1, fig. 5A could read on claim 1.
Ying et al, US-20200099125-A1, fig. 6 could read on claim 1.
Kim et al,US-20170047641-A1, fig. 4 could 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