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 .
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.
See claims 1-10 include term “unit” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 1, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagamori (US 11,757,482).
As to claim 1, Nagamori discloses a radio frequency circuit (see figure 2), comprising: a first amplifier PA, a first switch SW2, a first frequency band transceiver unit F1(Tx) (according to the instant specification, the claimed “a first frequency band transceiver unit” is defined as “The first frequency band transceiver unit 130 processes (for example, including filtering processing) the amplified signal of the first frequency band and then transmits the processed signal to the antenna 150”; therefore, the filtering filter F1(Tx) reads on the claimed “a first frequency band transceiver unit” under a broadest reasonable interpretation), a second frequency band transceiver unit F3(Tx), and an antenna ANT, wherein the first switch SW2 comprises a first movable end (see figure 2 below), a first non-movable end (see figure 2 below), and a second non-movable end (see figure 2 below), wherein an input end of the first amplifier is connected to a radio frequency transceiver (see column 7 lines 2-5 which discloses “The communication circuit is connected to the input of a power amplifier circuit PA described below and the outputs of low-noise amplifier circuits LNA1 and LNA2.”; in this instance, the “communication circuit” reads on “a radio frequency transceiver” as claimed), an output end of the first amplifier PA is connected to the first movable end, the first non-movable end is connected to one end of the first frequency band transceiver unit F1(Tx), the second non-movable end is connected to one end of the second frequency band transceiver unit F3(Tx), and the other end the first frequency band transceiver unit F1(Tx) and the other end of the second frequency band transceiver unit F3(Tx) are both connected to the antenna ANT (see column 7 lines 20-25).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Nagamori discloses that the radio frequency circuit further comprises a third frequency band transceiver unit F31 (see figure 2), the first switch SW2 further comprises a thirteenth non-movable end (see the bottom output terminal of SW2), the thirteenth non-movable end is connected to one end of the third frequency band transceiver unit F31, and the other end of the third frequency band transceiver unit is used for connecting to the antenna ANT.
As to claim 10, Nagamori disclose an electronic device, comprising the radio frequency circuit according to claim 1 (see an electronic device in at least figure 24).
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.
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 Nagamori in view of Tsuda (US 11,290,135).
As to claim 2, Nagamori fails to disclose a radio frequency circuit as claimed. Tsuda discloses that an antenna (see at least figure 6) comprises a first sub-antenna 13 and a second sub-antenna 14, the other end of a first frequency band transceiver unit 31T1 is connected to the first sub-antenna 13, and the other end of a second frequency band transceiver unit 32T1 is connected to the second sub-antenna 14; in a case that the output end of a first amplifier 43 communicates with the first sub-antenna 13 through a first switch 61 and the first frequency band transceiver unit 31T1, the first amplifier 43 is configured to amplify a signal of a first frequency band A, and the first frequency band transceiver unit 31T1 processes the amplified signal of the first frequency band A and then transmits the processed signal to the first sub-antenna 13; and in a case that the output end of the first amplifier 43 communicates with the second sub-antenna 14 through the first switch 61 and the second frequency band transceiver unit 32T1, the first amplifier 43 is configured to amplify a signal of a second frequency band B, and the second frequency band transceiver unit 32T1 processes the amplified signal of the second frequency band B and then transmits the processed signal to the second sub-antenna 14. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Tsuda to Nagamori, in order to increase communication coverage areas.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamori.
As to claim 9, Nagamori fails to disclose that the first frequency band transceiver unit comprises a B41 frequency band transceiver unit, and the second frequency band transceiver unit comprises an N41 frequency band transceiver unit. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary operating bands of the frequency band transceiver units. In addition, the examiner takes Official Notice that such a B41 frequency band transceiver unit, and an N41 frequency band transceiver unit are known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nagamori as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as excellent capacity and fast speeds, balancing range with performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8 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.
As to claims 3-5, the prior art of record fail to anticipate, or render obvious, that the second frequency band transceiver unit comprises: a second switch, a second frequency band receive port, a second frequency band filter, a third switch, and a first coupler, wherein the second switch comprises a third non-movable end, a fourth non-movable end, and a second movable end, the third switch comprises a fifth non-movable end and a third movable end, one end of the second frequency band transceiver unit is the third non-movable end of the second switch, the fourth non-movable end is connected to the second frequency band receive port, the second movable end is connected to the third movable end through the second frequency band filter, the fifth non-movable end is connected to a first end of the first coupler, a second end of the first coupler is connected to the antenna, and the other end of the second frequency band transceiver unit is the second end of the first coupler.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record fail to anticipate, or render obvious, that the first frequency band transceiver unit comprises a fifth switch, a first frequency band receive port, and a first frequency band filter, and the fifth switch comprises a sixth movable end, an eleventh non-movable end, and a twelfth non-movable end; and one end of the first frequency band transceiver unit is the eleventh non-movable end of the fifth switch, the twelfth non-movable end is connected to the first frequency band receive port, the sixth movable end is connected to one end of the first frequency band filter, the other end of the first frequency band filter is used for connecting to the antenna, and the other end of the first frequency band transceiver unit is the other end of the first frequency band filter.
As to claim 8, the prior art of record fail to anticipate, or render obvious, a radio frequency circuit as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uejima (US 11,265,028); Hasnain (EP 3547792); and Sanchez (US 2014/0187284) disclose multi-band transceivers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646