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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 11, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hammel (Fig. 1); 4,321,523] in view of [Ghorpade et al (Fig. 3); 8,330,537].
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Hammel discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a switching circuit (12), a first electrical path (the connection between the elements 10 and 12) formed between the rectifier (10) and the switching circuit (12), a first switch 24), and a first diode (a diode in 20) connected to a second electrical path (10, 20, 18, 12) formed from a first point (the node between the elements 10 and 20) of the first electrical path (the connection between the elements 10 and 12) to the switching circuit (12) and the first diode (a diode in 20) connected between the first point (the node between the elements 10 and 20) and the switching circuit (12). As described above, Hammel discloses all the limitations in claim 1 except for that the power amplifier. Ghorpade et al discloses an amplifier network comprising a power amplifier (56) which is connected between the rectifier (12) and the switching circuit (S13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to have employed the power amplifier at between the rectifier and switching circuit of Hammel (Fig. 1), such as taught by Ghorpade et al (Fig. 3) in order to provide the advantageous benefit of improving the signal transmission of the amplifier network.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Hammel further comprises a first resistor (resistor in 20) connected between the first point (the node between the elements 10 and 20) and the first diode (a diode in 20).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the switching circuit (12) includes a single pole dual Throw switch which includes a common port and a first port, and a second port.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Hammel further comprises a first capacitor (shunt capacitor in 18) connecting the first diode (a diode in 20) and the switching circuit (12) to a ground.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 12-14 and 16-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Henry Choe whose telephone number is (571)272-1760. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 AM- 6:00 PM EST. 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/interview practice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrea J Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on (571)272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/HENRY CHOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
#2941