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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1-2, and 4-10 are pending in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, line3, the term “a pole” should be --the pole--.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 7, the term “the pole-connector interface” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2, 4-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2023/0155636) hereinafter Jeon in view of Aparin (US 20132/0208473) cited in IDS filed 08/16/2024, and Daughtry (US 2017/0063002).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon discloses an antenna filter unit (AFU) (280) (see [0036], comprising: a plurality of cavity filters (see Fig. 1B, [0046]); and a Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) antenna unit (see [0004], [0039]) coupled to the plurality of cavity filters (see Abstract, [0014], [0044]). Jeon fails to explicitly disclose wherein the AFU (280) is blind-mated to a radio frequency front end module (RFEM) (250) through a pole between respective connectors on the AFU (280) and the RFEM (250).
Aparin discloses wherein the AFU (280) is blind-mated to a radio frequency front end module (RFEM) (250) through a pole between respective connectors on the AFU (280) and the RFEM (250), and wherein the pole functions as a transmission line and the pole-connector interface forms part of the AFU (280) to route transmit and receive signals to the cavity filters (see Abstract, [0021], [0031], [0048], [0052], [0053], [0056], [0059] wherein [0031] illustrates that a front-end RF filter may have embedded impedance transformation and may be internally matched directly to an active circuit (e.g., an amplifier) that interfaces with the RF filter. The RF filter with embedded impedance transformation may be referred to as a Z-matched RF filter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to connect the AFU and the radio frequency front end module (RFEM) (250) as taught by Aparin into the teachings of Jeon in order to reduce the number and/or complexity of circuits in the transmitter and receiver in order to reduce the cost and size of the wireless device.
Jeon and Aparin fail to explicitly disclose the AFU (280) is blind-mated to a radio frequency front end module (RFEM) (250) through a pole between respective connectors on the AFU (280) and the RFEM (250).
Daughtry discloses that the AFU (280) is blind-mated to a radio frequency front end module (RFEM) (250) through a pole between respective connectors on the AFU (280) and the RFEM (250) (see Figs. 1, 3, [0003], [0026], [0027], [0030], [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to blind mate between the AFU (280) and the radio frequency front end module (RFEM) (250) through a pole between respective connectors on the AFU (280) and the RFEM as taught Daughtry into the teachings of Jeon and Aparin in order to reduce or eliminate damage and/or loss by the automated process due to misaligned connectors.
Regarding claim 2, Jeon discloses wherein the AFU (280) comprises a calibration Printed Circuit Board (PCB) (see [0070] illustrates that the filter board may include an AFU PCB).
Regarding claim 4, Daughtry discloses wherein the AFU (280) and the RFEM (250) are configured on a high speed transceiver board (HSTB) (200) along with the transmission line that is connected between two connectors as a pole (see [0026], [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, Jeon discloses wherein the AFU (280) comprises one or more antenna ports as receiver and transmitter outputs, the one or more antenna ports being connected to respective cavity filters to achieve 32T32R configuration that provides steeper roll- off outside operating band (see [0075], 0077].
Claim 9 is similar to 1. Jeon also discloses user equipment (UE) (302) (see [0040] illustrates that the terminal 120 is a device used by a user, and communicates with the base station 110 through a wireless channel. In some cases, the terminal 120 may be operated without user intervention. For example, the terminal 120 is a device for performing machine type communication (MTC) and may not be carried by the user. The terminal 120 may be referred to as, in addition to a terminal, a “user equipment (UE)”, a “mobile station”, a “subscriber station”, a “customer premises equipment (CPE)”, a “remote terminal”, a “wireless terminal”, an “electronic device”, a “vehicle terminal”, a “user device”, or other terms having an equivalent technical meaning) communicatively coupled to a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) radio unit (100), the UE (302) comprising: one or more primary processors communicatively coupled to one or more processors of the MIMO radio unit (100) through a network (304), the one or more primary processors coupled with a memory, wherein said memory stores instructions which when executed by the one or more primary processors causes the UE (302) (see [0106], [0117]). Therefore; claim 9 is rejected under a similar rationale.
Claim 10 is similar to 1. Jeon also discloses non-transitory computer readable medium comprising processor- executable instructions that cause a processor to: transmit one or more radio frequency (RF) control signals to a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) radio unit (100) (see [0117]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 2023/0108020) disclose an antenna filter and electronic device comprising same in wireless communication system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3019. The examiner can normally be reached until 4:00PM.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/KHAI TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
KT
January 22, 2026