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 .
Action Final
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
The applicant amended independent with newly added limitations which have not been considered on its merits in the previous office action thus mood.
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 “wherein said end of the second choke inductor is unconnected to the first choke inductor” in Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, the recitation of “an other inductor” should correctly be ---another inductor---. 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 1-2 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.
In claim 1, the recitation of “wherein said end of the second choke inductor is unconnected to the first choke inductor” is indefinite and ambiguous because
the end of the second choke inductor is appear connected to the first choke inductor since the first and second choke inductor connected to a common supply VDD. It is noted that the original specification does not appear disclosed where the supply voltage VDD that connected to inductor LC1 is different from the supply voltage VDD that connected to inductor LC2. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 2 is rejected due to dependent of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fletcher et al. (US 9673759 B1, of record), hereinafter called “Fletcher”.
Insofar regarding claim 1 is understood:
Fletcher (Fig. 1) discloses a bias circuit used to reduce shunt parasitic capacitance and losses comprising:
at least two choke inductors (e.g., inductor 68a, inductor 68b, inductor 68c) on the bias circuit,
wherein a first choke inductor (inductor 68a) of the at least two choke inductors is connected to a drain terminal of at least one transistor (FET 25a), and
an end (top terminal) of a second choke inductor (inductor 68b) of the at least two choke inductors is connected to a supply voltage (Vdrain) and grounded via a decoupling capacitor (capacitor 70b),
wherein another inductor (inductor 34) is connected between the first choke inductor (inductor 68a) and the second choke inductor (inductor 68b),
wherein the another inductor (inductor34 provides a most direct connection between the first choke inductor and the second choke inductor, and
wherein said end of the second choke inductor (inductor 68b) is connected to the first choke inductor (inductor 68a).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Yoon et al. (US 20040104449 A1, of record), hereinafter called Yoon .
Regarding claim 2, Fletcher discloses all of the limitations as applied in claim 1 except for each of the at least two choke inductors has a transmission line width of 15 micrometers( µm).
Yoon discloses spiral inductor 103 having a width of 15 micrometers (see paragraph [0103]).
Therefore, 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 inductor taught by Fletcher to have an inductor has transmission line width of 15 micrometers( µm) taught by Yoon.
Such a modification would have imparted the advantageous benefit of providing “a high performance such a high Q-factor” see paragraph [0103], as taught by Yoon, to Fletcher reference, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3941. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, ANDREA J LINDGREN BALTZELL can be reached at (571)272-5918. 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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843