DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendment filed on 08/29/25 has been received and entered in the case. The amendments to the claims do not distinguish patentably over the previously applied Backes et al reference and therefore the rejection based on this reference is maintained and repeated, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The amended claims are objected to because they are not in proper format, i.e., applicant indicates that additional terms are presented in underlined text, but no such underlining is seen anywhere in the above-noted claims as amended by applicant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The originally filed specification, claims and drawings do not clearly indicate how setting the third variable reactive component will provide the claimed result of achieving an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency-tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states, i.e., there is insufficient detail on how this occurs in applicant's invention for enabling one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Backes et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0159222.
As to claim 1, Backes et al discloses, in figures 3 and 4, a match network comprising:
an input (the input terminal of the impedance matching network shown in figures 3 and 4);
an output (the output terminal of the impedance matching network shown in figures 3 and 4);
a first variable reactive component (any first one of the various reactive components, i.e., the variable capacitors, shown in figures 3 and 4 of Backes et al);
a second variable reactive component (any second one of the various reactive components, i.e., the variable capacitors 302A-D and 402/404, shown respectively in figures 3 and 4 of Backes et al);
a third variable reactive component (any third one of the various reactive components, i.e., the variable capacitors, shown in figures 3 and 4 of Backes et al); and
a controller (the unillustrated but inherent controller in Backes et al which outputs the control signals which change the capacitance of the above-noted variable capacitors in figures 3 and 4 of Backes et al) configured to:
control the first variable reactive component and the second variable reactive component to, at least in part, match a load impedance at the output to a source impedance at the input during first and second impedance states (the inherent result of changing the capacitance values of the above-noted variable capacitors); and
set the third variable reactive component to achieve an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency-tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states (note that Backes et al’s third capacitor can be tuned, at least in part, so that frequency sweep completes tuning in multiple tuning states, see paragraphs [0027] and [0037], and also note that inherently in Backes et al the capacitance value of the above-noted third variable reactive component will be set, and the recitation of achieving an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency-tuning subsystem is just a recitation of the inherent result, i.e., if setting the third variable reactive component in applicant's invention achieves an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states, then so too does setting the third variable reactive component in Backes et al achieve an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states in the match network and thus the controller in Backes et al will inherently set the above-noted third variable reactive component to achieve an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency-tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states, the reason being that this will be the inherent operation and result which occurs when the above-noted first through third variable reactive components are set to fixed values, and then frequency sweeping is performed by Backes et al’s inherent frequency-tuning subsystem, in order to complete tuning during the first impedance state and/or the second impedance state--note in particular figure 5 of Backes et al which shows a Smith chart including impedance trajectories which are obtained by frequency sweeping the values of the third reactive component after setting the first and second reactive components to fixed values.
As to claim 2, Backes et al discloses the match network of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the first and second variable reactive components together to match a load impedance at the output to a source impedance at the input during a first state and set the third variable reactive component so that frequency sweeping completes tuning during the second state (the controller signals control the first and second capacitors together to match an impedance at the output to a source impedance at the input during at least a first state, and set the third capacitor so that frequency tuning completes during at least a second state, see paragraphs [0027] through [0030] and [0036] through [0038] of Backes et al).
As to claim 3, Backes et al discloses the match network of claim 1, wherein the first variable reactive component comprises one or more shunt capacitors, the second variable reactive component comprises one or more series capacitors, and the third variable reactive component comprises one or more shunt capacitors (the first and third capacitors may provide shunt capacitance while the second capacitor provides series capacitance, see paragraph [0046] of Backes et al).
As to claim 4, Backes et al discloses the match network of claim 1, wherein the first variable reactive component comprises one or more shunt capacitors, the second variable reactive component comprises one or more series capacitors, and the third variable reactive component comprises one or more series capacitors (the first capacitor may provide shunt capacitance while the second and third capacitors may be selected to provide series capacitance, see paragraph [0046] of Backes et al).
As to claim 5, Backes et al discloses the match network of claim 1, wherein the third variable reactive component comprises an array of fixed reactive components, wherein each fixed reactive component is switchably engaged and disengaged (the third capacitor may include third and fourth capacitors which are selectively controlled by a controller, see paragraphs [0045] through [0047] of Backes et al).
As to claim 6, Backes et al discloses the match network of claim 1, wherein the variable first reactive component is a shunt capacitance that is controlled by the controller to respond to a resistive component of the load impedance (the first capacitor provides shunt capacitance, and is controlled by a load which may have a resistor, see paragraphs [0024], [0046] of Backes et al); the variable second reactive component is a series capacitance that is controlled by the controller to respond to a reactive component of the load impedance (the second capacitor may provide series capacitance controlled to respond to a component in the load impedance, see paragraph [0024] of Backes et al); and the third variable reactive component is controlled to achieve a desired impedance trajectory when a frequency of power is applied to match changes (the third capacitor can, in part, be controlled to aid in achieving a desired impedance change when the frequency to match changes, see paragraph [0032] of Backes et al).
As to claim 7, Backes et al discloses the match network of claim 1, further comprising a measurement section configured to provide an output indicative of an impedance of a dynamic load presented to a generator; and the controller is configured to control first, second, and third variable reactive components based upon the output indicative of an impedance of a dynamic load (the impedance can be measured in a measurement section, which provides an output indicative of an impedance of a load which is dynamic, and a control may control the capacitors based upon the output, see paragraphs [0021] and [0029] through [0031] of Backes et al).
As to claims 8-16, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to claims 1-7.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 08/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Backes et al "at best discloses a system 200 that includes an impedance matching tuner 108 coupled to an antenna 104 and paragraph [0037] of Backes appears to discuss that this tuner 108 can be swept, but they do not appear to clearly disclose setting the third variable reactive component to specifically achieve an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency-tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states, as claimed. The cited passage may discuss general sweeping but not this specific functionality." This argument is not persuasive because, as noted above, Backes et al does in fact meet this limitation, i.e., the controller in Backes et al will inherently set the above-noted third variable reactive component to achieve an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency-tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states, i.e., this is the inherent operation and result which occurs when the above-noted first through variable reactive components are set to first through third values, respectively, and then the frequency is swept through various frequencies in order to inherently achieve an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency tuning subsystem, in order to complete tuning during the first impedance state and/or the second impedance state--applicant should note in particular figure 5 of Backes et al which shows a Smith chart including impedance trajectories which are obtained by frequency sweeping the values of the third reactive component after setting the first and second reactive components to fixed values. Moreover, as noted above, inherently in Backes et al the capacitance value of the above-noted third variable reactive component will be set, and the recitation of achieving an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency-tuning subsystem is just a recitation of the inherent result, i.e., if setting the third variable reactive component in applicant's invention achieves an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states, then so too does setting the third variable reactive component in Backes et al achieve an impedance trajectory that enables frequency sweeping performed by a frequency tuning subsystem to complete tuning during at least one of the impedance states in the match network.
Action is Final
6. 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, LINCOLN DONOVAN can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 November 6, 2025