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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 20-25 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The indentation of the last limitation of each claim needs to be corrected since the last limitation is a part of the “at least one of” statement.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for transducing”, “means for inhibiting energy, “means for filtering energy”, and “means for impedance matching” in claim 17, and “means for inhibiting” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For examination purposes, examiner interpreted “means for transducing” as a patch conductor or an energy coupler as described in paragraph 45 of the specification, “means for inhibiting energy” as a frequency inhibitor as described in paragraph 47 of the specification, “means for filtering energy” as a frequency inhibitor or filter as described in paragraph 48 of the specification, “means for impedance matching” as a matching stub as described in paragraph 36 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3-9, 13, 15-17, 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2022/0393365, hereby referred as Wu) in view of Rajagopalan et al. (US 2020/0021019, hereby referred as Raj).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches the following:
a user equipment (UE) antenna system comprising:
a dual-range antenna element (30, figure 7) comprising:
a ground conductor (72, figure 7);
a dielectric material (84, figure 7);
a first antenna element (54-1, figure 7) comprising:
a first patch conductor (74, figure 7) disposed in the dielectric material and configured to transduce between first wireless signals in a first frequency range and first guided signals in the first frequency range (paragraph [0068]); and
at least one first energy coupler (80, figure 7) disposed and configured to couple energy in the first frequency range between the first patch conductor and the at least one first energy coupler;
a second antenna element (54-2, figure 7) comprising:
a second patch conductor (76, figure 7) disposed in the dielectric material and configured to transduce between second wireless signals in a second frequency range and second guided signals in the second frequency range, the second frequency range including higher frequencies than the first frequency range (paragraph [0068]); and
at least one second energy coupler (82, figure 7) disposed and configured to couple energy in the second frequency range between the second patch conductor and the at least one second energy coupler; and
a second frequency inhibitor (75, figure 7) electrically connected to the first patch conductor and configured to inhibit energy in the second frequency range from propagating, as a second-order mode, in the first antenna element (paragraphs [0080]-[0081]).
Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the dual-range antenna element further comprises at least one of: a first frequency inhibitor configured to inhibit frequencies in the first frequency range and comprising at least one open-ended transmission line electrically connected to a respective one of the at least one second energy coupler, wherein the at least one open-ended transmission line is disposed on a first side of the ground conductor and both the first patch conductor and the second patch conductor are disposed on a second side of the ground conductor; and at least one matching stub each comprising a matching transmission line electrically connected to a respective one of the at least one first energy coupler and electrically connected to a ground member that is electrically connected to the ground conductor, wherein the at least one matching stub is disposed on a first side of the ground conductor and both the first patch conductor and the second patch conductor are disposed on a second side of the ground conductor.
Raj suggests the teachings of wherein the dual-range antenna element further comprises at least one matching stub (150A or 160A, figure 9) each comprising a matching transmission line electrically connected to a respective one of the at least one first energy coupler (126A and 154A, figure 9) and electrically connected to a ground member (142, figure 9) that is electrically connected to the ground conductor (92, figure 9), wherein the at least one matching stub is disposed on a first side of the ground conductor and both the first patch conductor (104A, figure 9) and the second patch conductor (104B, figure 9) are disposed on a second side of the ground conductor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the dual-range antenna element of Wu to further comprise at least one matching stub each comprising a matching transmission line electrically connected to a respective one of the at least one first energy coupler and electrically connected to a ground member that is electrically connected to the ground conductor, wherein the at least one matching stub is disposed on a first side of the ground conductor and both the first patch conductor and the second patch conductor are disposed on a second side of the ground conductor as suggested by the teachings of Raj in order to provide impedance matching which can be used to provide additional isolation between the antennas (paragraphs [0093], [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 3, Wu as referred in claim 23 teaches the following:
wherein the ground mechanism (75, figure 7) comprises a plurality of electrically-conductive vias (“Short path 75 (sometimes referred to herein as shorting pin 75) may be formed from one or more conductive vias”, paragraph [0079]) each electrically connected to the ground conductor and each electrically coupled to the first patch conductor within one-tenth of the wavelength, of the frequency in the first frequency range in the dielectric material, of the center of the first patch conductor (paragraphs [0079]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 4, Wu as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the second frequency inhibitor comprises a plurality of electrically-conductive vias (75, figure 7, “Short path 75 (sometimes referred to herein as shorting pin 75) may be formed from one or more conductive vias”, paragraph [0079]) each electrically connected to the ground conductor (72, figure 7) and each electrically coupled to the first patch conductor (74, figure 7), the electrically-conductive vias being disposed with angular symmetry about a center of the first patch conductor (paragraphs [0079]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first frequency inhibitor comprises at least one notch filter, with each of the at least one notch filter being coupled to a respective one of the at least one second energy coupler and configured to suppress frequencies in the first frequency range (the combination of Wu and Raj as referred in claim 1 teach the alternative limitation of the at least one matching stub, and therefore this limitation is not required).
Regarding claim 6, Wu as referred in claim 5 teaches the following:
wherein each of the at least one notch filter comprises a respective one of the at least one open-ended transmission line electrically connected to the respective one of the at least one second energy coupler (the combination of Wu and Raj as referred in claim 1 teach the alternative limitation of the at least one matching stub, and therefore this limitation is not required).
Regarding claim 7, Wu as referred in claim 6 teaches the following:
wherein the open-ended transmission line of each of the at least one notch filter has a length of between 0.2 wavelengths, in the dielectric material, of a frequency in the first frequency range and 0.3 wavelengths, in the dielectric material, of a frequency of the first frequency range (the combination of Wu and Raj as referred in claim 1 teach the alternative limitation of the at least one matching stub, and therefore this limitation is not required).
Regarding claim 8, Wu as referred in claim 1 teaches the UE antenna system with the exception for the following:
wherein the second frequency range includes a frequency that is twice a frequency in the first frequency range.
However, Wu does teach that the second frequency range includes a frequency that is 1.79 times a frequency in the first frequency range (paragraph [0077]). Wu also teaches that the frequencies can be altered to cover any desired centimeter and/or millimeter wave frequencies (paragraph [0094]).
Raj also suggests the teachings of having a wide range of different frequencies (paragraphs [0020], [0036], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second frequency range of Wu as modified to include a frequency that is twice a frequency in the first frequency range as suggested by the teachings of Wu and Raj in order to cover a certain desired frequency ban (Wu, paragraph [0094](Raj, paragraphs [0020], [0036], [0059]), and 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).
Regarding claim 9, Wu as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first patch conductor (74, figure 7) is disposed between the second patch conductor (76, figure 7) and the ground conductor (72, figure 7).
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches the following:
a method of transducing signals over multiple frequency ranges, the method comprising:
transducing between first wireless signals and first guided signals using a first antenna element (54-1, figure 7), the first wireless signals and the first guided signals being in a first frequency range (paragraph [0068]);
transducing between second wireless signals and second guided signals using a second antenna element (54-2, figure 7), the second wireless signals and the second guided signals being in a second frequency range that includes higher frequencies than the first frequency range (paragraph [0068]);
inhibiting energy in the second frequency range from propagating, as a second-order mode, in the first antenna element (paragraphs [0080]-[0081]).
Wu does not explicitly teach at least one of: inhibiting energy in the first frequency range from propagating in the second antenna element using a frequency inhibitor, wherein a ground conductor is disposed between the frequency inhibitor and both the first antenna element and the second antenna element; and
impedance matching with a transmission line coupled to an energy coupler that is coupled to the first antenna element, wherein the ground conductor is disposed between the transmission line and both the first antenna element and the second antenna element.
Raj suggests the teachings of impedance matching (150A or 160A, figure 9) with a transmission line (126A, figure 9) coupled to an energy coupler (154A, figure 9) that is coupled to the first antenna element (104A, figure 9), wherein the ground conductor (92, figure 9) is disposed between the transmission line and both the first antenna element (104A, figure 9) and the second antenna element (104B, figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Wu to further comprise impedance matching with a transmission line coupled to an energy coupler that is coupled to the first antenna element, wherein the ground conductor is disposed between the transmission line and both the first antenna element and the second antenna element as suggested by the teachings of Raj in order to provide impedance matching which can be used to provide additional isolation between the antennas (paragraphs [0093], [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 15, Wu as referred in claim 13 teaches the following:
wherein inhibiting energy in the first frequency range from propagating in the second antenna element comprises applying a notch filter to an energy coupler of the second antenna element to suppress frequencies in the first frequency range (the combination of Wu and Raj as referred in claim 1 teach the alternative limitation of the at least one matching stub, and therefore this limitation is not required).
Regarding claim 16, Wu as referred in claim 13 teaches the method with the exception for the following:
wherein the second frequency range includes a frequency that is twice a frequency in the first frequency range.
However, Wu does teach that the second frequency range includes a frequency that is 1.79 times a frequency in the first frequency range (paragraph [0077]). Wu also teaches that the frequencies can be altered to cover any desired centimeter and/or millimeter wave frequencies (paragraph [0094]).
Raj also suggests the teachings of having a wide range of different frequencies (paragraphs [0020], [0036], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second frequency range of Wu as modified to include a frequency that is twice a frequency in the first frequency range as suggested by the teachings of Wu and Raj in order to cover a certain desired frequency ban (Wu, paragraph [0094](Raj, paragraphs [0020], [0036], [0059]), and 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).
Regarding claim 17, Wu teaches the following:
a user equipment (UE) antenna system comprising:
means for transducing between first wireless signals and first guided signals using a first antenna element (54-1, figure 7), the first wireless signals and the first guided signals being in a first frequency range (paragraph [0068]);
means for transducing between second wireless signals and second guided signals using a second antenna element (54-2, figure 7), the second wireless signals and the second guided signals being in a second frequency range that includes higher frequencies than the first frequency range (paragraph [0068]); and
means for inhibiting energy in the second frequency range from propagating, as a second-order mode, in the first antenna element (paragraphs [0080]-[0081]).
Wu does not explicitly teach at least one of: means for filtering energy in an energy coupler of the second antenna element to suppress frequencies in the first frequency range, wherein a ground conductor is disposed between the means for filtering energy and both the first antenna element and the second antenna element; and means for impedance matching with a transmission line coupled to an energy coupler of the first antenna element, wherein the ground conductor is disposed between the means for impedance matching and both the first antenna element and the second antenna element.
Raj suggests the teachings of means for impedance matching (150A or 160A, figure 9) with a transmission line (126A, figure 9) coupled to an energy coupler (154A, figure 9) of the first antenna element (104A, figure 9), wherein the ground conductor (92, figure 9)is disposed between the means for impedance matching and both the first antenna element (104A, figure 9) and the second antenna element (104B, figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the user equipment (UE) antenna system of Wu to further comprise a means for impedance matching with a transmission line coupled to an energy coupler of the first antenna element, wherein the ground conductor is disposed between the means for impedance matching and both the first antenna element and the second antenna element as suggested by the teachings of Raj in order to provide impedance matching which can be used to provide additional isolation between the antennas (paragraphs [0093], [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 20, Wu as referred in claim 17 teaches the UE antenna system with the exception for the following:
wherein the second frequency range includes a frequency that is twice a frequency in the first frequency range.
However, Wu does teach that the second frequency range includes a frequency that is 1.79 times a frequency in the first frequency range (paragraph [0077]). Wu also teaches that the frequencies can be altered to cover any desired centimeter and/or millimeter wave frequencies (paragraph [0094]).
Raj also suggests the teachings of having a wide range of different frequencies (paragraphs [0020], [0036], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second frequency range of Wu as modified to include a frequency that is twice a frequency in the first frequency range as suggested by the teachings of Wu and Raj in order to cover a certain desired frequency ban (Wu, paragraph [0094](Raj, paragraphs [0020], [0036], [0059]), and 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).
Regarding claim 21, Wu as referred in claim 23 teaches the following:
wherein the ground mechanism (75, figure 7) is fully within 1/25 of the wavelength of the center of the first patch conductor (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 22, Wu as referred in claim 23 teaches the following:
wherein the ground mechanism (75, figure 7) is at least partially within 1/70 of the wavelength of the center of the first patch conductor (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 23, Wu as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the second frequency inhibitor comprises a ground mechanism (75, figure 7) electrically connected to the ground conductor (72, figure 7) and to the first patch conductor (74, figure 7) and disposed fully within one-tenth of a wavelength, of a frequency in the first frequency range in the dielectric material (84, figure 7), of a center of the first patch conductor (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 24, Wu as referred in claim 13 teaches the following:
wherein the inhibiting (74, figure 7) comprises grounding a region fully within one-tenth of a wavelength, of a frequency in the first frequency range in a dielectric material (84, figure 7) in which a patch conductor of the first antenna element is disposed, of a center (paragraph [0081]) of the patch conductor (75, figure 7).
Regarding claim 25, Wu as referred in claim 17 teaches the following:
wherein the means for inhibiting (74, figure 7) comprise means for grounding a region within one-tenth of a wavelength, of a frequency in the first frequency range in a dielectric material (84, figure 7) in which a patch conductor of the first antenna element is disposed, of a center (paragraph [0081]) of the patch conductor (75, figure 7).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2022/0393365, hereby referred as Wu) in view of Rajagopalan et al. (US 2020/0021019, hereby referred as Raj), and further in view of Fabrega et al. (US 2022/0045442A1, hereby referred as Fabrega).
Regarding claim 11, Wu as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the dual-range antenna element is one of a plurality of dual-range antenna elements disposed in a linear array (36, as shown in figures 4 and 7).
Wu does not explicitly teach the UE antenna system further comprising a third antenna element disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of dual-range antenna elements and configured to transduce signals in the second frequency range.
Fabrega suggests the teachings of the UE antenna system further comprising a third antenna element (106a, figures 1) disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of dual-range antenna elements (104a/b, figures 1) and configured to transduce signals in the second frequency range (paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the UE antenna system of Wu as modified to further comprise a third antenna element disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of dual-range antenna elements and configured to transduce signals in the second frequency range as suggested by the teachings of Fabrega in order to support more frequency bands and improving performance and coverage (paragraphs [0048]-[0049], and [0069]).
Regarding claim 12, Wu as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the dual-range antenna element is one of a plurality of first dual-range antenna elements (36, as shown in figures 4 and 7).
Wu does not explicitly teach the UE antenna system further comprising: a plurality of second dual-range antenna elements configured to transduce signals in the second frequency range and a third frequency range that includes frequencies higher than the second frequency range; and
a plurality of third antenna elements configured to transduce signals in the third frequency range; wherein the plurality of first dual-range antenna elements, the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements, and the plurality of third antenna elements are disposed in a linear array; wherein a pair of the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements and a pair of the plurality of third antenna elements are disposed between each pair of adjacent ones of the plurality of first antenna elements, with the pair of the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements and the pair of the plurality of third antenna elements being interleaved.
However, Fabrega (Fig. 9) teaches wherein the dual-range antenna element (944A) is one of a plurality of first dual-range antenna elements (944), the UE antenna system further comprising: a plurality of second dual-range antenna elements (904) configured to transduce signals in the second frequency range and a third frequency range that includes frequencies higher than the second frequency range ([0174]); and a plurality of third antenna elements (906) configured to transduce signals in the third frequency range; wherein the plurality of first dual-range antenna elements (944), the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements (904), and the plurality of third antenna elements (906) are disposed in a linear array (902); wherein a pair of the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements (904a, 904b) and a pair of the plurality of third antenna elements (906a, 906b) are disposed between each pair of adjacent ones of the plurality of first antenna elements (944a, 944b), with the pair of the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements (904a, 904b) and the pair of the plurality of third antenna elements (906a, 906b) being interleaved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the UE antenna system of Wu as modified to further comprise a plurality of second dual-range antenna elements configured to transduce signals in the second frequency range and a third frequency range that includes frequencies higher than the second frequency range; and a plurality of third antenna elements configured to transduce signals in the third frequency range; wherein the plurality of first dual-range antenna elements, the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements, and the plurality of third antenna elements are disposed in a linear array; wherein a pair of the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements and a pair of the plurality of third antenna elements are disposed between each pair of adjacent ones of the plurality of first antenna elements, with the pair of the plurality of second dual-range antenna elements and the pair of the plurality of third antenna elements being interleaved as suggested by the teachings of Fabrega in order to support more frequency bands and improving performance and coverage (paragraphs [0048]-[0049], and [0069]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection over Wu in view of Sudo has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Sudo teaches that the stubs (150/152) can be above (in figure 2) the ground plane (GND) or below (in figure 4) the ground plane. Sudo further teaches the stubs (150/152) can either be open (as shown in figure 5) or directly connected to ground (as shown in figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the combination of Wu in view of Sudo as applied in claim 1 of the previous rejection would still read on the amended limitations of claim 1, in addition to the other independent claims and some of the dependent claims.
However, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
While the current claims are rejected, if claim 1 was amended to remove the “at least one of”, then it would overcome the current prior art of record. If similar amendments were made to the other independent claims, in addition to the specifics of the first frequency inhibitor and the at least one matching stub as claimed in claim 1, they would also overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
