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 filed 8/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant refers to paragraphs of the instant application to disclose additional details of the claimed limitations which are not explicitly reflected in the claim language (Remarks, p. 7-8). Examiner refers to MPEP 2111.01(II), "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant alleges Kijima “is directed to an antenna device using a GaAs switch that provides both protection form stress such as static electricity and high-frequency matching” and “does not explicitly state that the addition of inductor L6 causes the impedance mismatch that C5 is intended to fix,” and alleges that Claims 1, 2, and 22 recite a solution to “the specific problem where adding a protective device creates resistance that must then be canceled”; the limitation of “the reactance causing the electrical stress is reactance of an additional device” is recited in claims 3 and 4, thus the argument that Kijima fails to teach this limitation is moot with respect to the rejection of claim 2. Examiner agrees, however, that this limitation is not taught by the art of record, thus the rejections of claims 3 and 4 have been withdrawn herein.
Applicant further alleges neither Kijima nor Nakagawa teach “a reactance adjustment device that cancels reactance in a frequency band in use, the reactance causing electrical stress to be applied to a component of the electronic circuit”, and further that “the rejection improperly combines references that teach solutions to different problems”. Examiner refers to MPEP 2145(III), "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). Examiner maintains that the teachings of these references render the combination as presented in the rejection of claim 1 obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 22 over Nakagawa, that “as ‘electrical stress’ in the application refers to surges, static electricity, and other unintentional events, while the filter (141) in Nakagawa is a fundamental component for frequency selection within a duplexer, not an ‘additional’ component added for protection against such stress”, Examiner respectfully disagrees, referring to MPEP 2111.01(III), "[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the instant case, the term “additional” is understood by its plain meaning to refer to a device within the electronic circuit protection device which is separate and distinct from the aforementioned electronic circuit: Nakagawa teaches elements 16, 141, and 23, each of which are notably separate and distinct from one another, and suitably teach the invention as delimited by the recitation of the claims. Examiner maintains that the teachings of the reference render the invention as presented in claim 22 anticipated to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
(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 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kijima et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0067103 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kijima et al. discloses an antenna device, comprising:
an antenna part (Ant, see Fig. 8);
a board (1, Fig. 9) to which the antenna part (Ant, see Fig. 8) is connected;
an electronic circuit (GaAs2 switch, Fig. 8) mounted to the board (1, Fig. 9); and
a reactance adjustment device (capacitor C5 is a reactive component that implements optimum matching, ¶32; inductor L6 provides protection against electrostatic discharges, ¶29; see Fig. 9) that cancels reactance in a frequency band in use, the reactance causing electrical stress to be applied to a component of the electronic circuit (¶32),
wherein the board (1, Fig. 9) includes an external connection part (EGSM Rx) to be connected to external electronic equipment, and
the reactance adjustment device (capacitor C5 is a reactive component that implements optimum matching, ¶32; inductor L6 provides protection against electrostatic discharges, ¶29; see Fig. 8) is mounted between the electronic circuit (GaAs2 switch, Fig. 8) and the external connection part (EGSM Rx) and is connected to a ground part (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 21, Kijima discloses the antenna device according to claim 2, wherein the electronic circuit (GaAs2 switch, Fig. 8) contains an active element (¶32).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0058438 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Nakagawa discloses an electronic circuit protection device, comprising:
an electronic circuit (16, ¶55-56, Fig. 1);
an additional device (141, eliminates the stress applied by signals outside of the frequency of operation to the electronic circuit 16, Fig. 1) that is connected between an input side or an output side of the electronic circuit (16, ¶55-56, see Fig. 1) and a ground part (see ground part of reactance adjustment device 23 in Fig. 1), and is added to protect a component of the electronic circuit (16) from electrical stress (¶56); and
a reactance adjustment device (matching network 23 consists of reactive elements that cancel a reactance in the frequency band of operation in order to avoid the reflection of the signal due to impedance mismatch, ¶47, Fig. 1) that cancels the reactance of the additional device in a frequency band In use (¶56).
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 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0067103 A1) in view of Nakagawa (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0058436 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kijima et al. discloses an antenna device, comprising:
an antenna part (Ant, see Fig. 8);
a board (1, Fig. 9) to which the antenna part (Ant, See Fig. 8) is connected;
an electronic circuit (GaAs2 switch, Fig. 8) mounted to the board (1, Fig. 9); and
a reactance adjustment device (capacitor C5 is a reactive component that implements optimum matching, ¶32; inductor L6 provides protection against electrostatic discharges, ¶29; see Fig. 8) that cancels reactance in a frequency band in use, the reactance causing electrical stress to be applied to a component of the electronic circuit (¶32).
Kijima does not specifically teach wherein the board includes a board input part serving as an input interface with the antenna part, and the reactance adjustment device is mounted between the board input part and the electronic circuit, and is connected to a ground part.
However, Nakagawa teaches wherein the board (front-end circuit 1 on substrate 30, Figs. 1 and 3) includes a board input part (4, ¶38, Fig. 1) serving as an input interface with the antenna part (2, Fig. 1), and
a reactance adjustment device (matching network 23 consists of reactive elements that cancel a reactance in the frequency band of operation in order to avoid the reflection of the signal due to impedance mismatch, ¶47, Fig. 1) is mounted between the board input part (4, ¶38, Fig. 1) and the electronic circuit (16, ¶55-56, Fig. 1), and is connected to a ground part (see ground part of reactance adjustment device 23 in Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Nakagawa to the antenna device of Kijima wherein the board includes a board input part serving as an input interface with the antenna part, and the reactance adjustment device is mounted between the board input part and the electronic circuit, and is connected to a ground part, in order to control an antenna device input (4, ¶38) and to provide reactance adjustment and voltage protection before input voltage reaches the electronic circuit (¶73, 83).
Regarding claim 11, Kijima in view of Nakagawa teaches the antenna device according to claim 1.
Kijima does not specifically teach wherein the frequency band in use is a high frequency band in which the reactance causing the electrical stress influences an operation of the electronic circuit.
However, Kijima dose teach various embodiments which include the use of high-frequencies and high-frequency band switch circuits
Regarding claim 12, Kijima in view of Nakagawa teaches the antenna device according to claim 11, wherein the high frequency band (Kijima, ¶23) is a frequency band of a microwave band or higher (Kijima, ¶23).
Regarding claim 13, Kijima in view of Nakagawa teaches the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic circuit (GaAs2 switch, Fig. 8) contains an active element (¶32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 10, and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the reactance causing the electrical stress is reactance of an additional device that is connected between the board input part and the ground part, and that eliminates electrical stress to be applied to the component of the electronic circuit”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-8, 10 are included for their dependence upon claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the reactance causing the electrical stress is reactance of an additional device that is connected to between the electronic circuit and the ground part, and that eliminates electrical stress to be applied to the component of the electronic circuit”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-20 are included for their dependence upon claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 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, 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
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights