The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In replacement paragraph [0002], 5th line therein, note that a --,-- should be inserted after “frequency” for grammatical clarity. Pages 13 & 14 of the original specification, in paragraphs [0040] & [0041], note that --(FIG. 5)-- should be inserted after the following: after “TS1” & “DL (i.e. both in paragraph [0040], third line therein); after the first occurrence of “C1” (i.e. in paragraph [0040], 6th line therein); after “OP1” (i.e. in paragraph [0040], 7th line therein); after “TS2” (i.e. in paragraph [0041], first line therein); after the first occurrence of “C2” (i.e. in Paragraph [0041], 5th line therein) and after “OP2” (i.e. in paragraph [0041], 6th line therein). Page 13 of the original specification, in paragraph [0040], 4th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 6-- should be inserted after “t2” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 13 of the original specification, in paragraph [0041], second line, note that --as shown in FIG. 5-- should be inserted after “DL” and “t4”, respectively for appropriate characterizations consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 17 of the original specification, in paragraph [0050], second, third, 5th lines therein, note that --(FIG. 7)-- should be inserted after “TS” (i.e. second line therein), inserted after “DL” (i.e. third line therein) and inserted after “C1” (i.e. 5th line therein), respectively at these instances for consistency with the labeling in that drawing; third line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 8-- should be inserted after “t2” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing; 8th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 7-- should be inserted after “C1” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 20 of the original specification, in paragraph [0057], third and 7th lines therein, --as shown in FIGS. 7 and 9-- should be inserted after “DL” (i.e. third line therein) and inserted after “OP1” (i.e. 7th line therein), respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations consistent with the labeling in those drawings; 4th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 8-- should be inserted after “level” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 24-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 24, lines 1-3, note that the respective recitations of the “(first/second) terminal” being “coupled to the (first/second) terminal of the tunable component” do not appear consistent with and thus do not appear properly dependent from what was previously recited in claim 23, from which this claim directly depends, of the “(first/second) terminals” being “coupled to the (first/second) control terminal of the tunable circuit”, respectively. Accordingly appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 25, 26, 27, lines 2, 4 in each claim, note that it is unclear how each recitation of “(capacitive/resistive/inductive) coupling”, respectively recited in claims 25, 26 & 27 would relate to each other (i.e. one in the same corresponding coupling, separate and distinct corresponding couplings, etc.). Appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 21, line 8, note that the term “with” should be rewritten as --provided by-- for an appropriate characterization.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It should be noted that applicants’ cancellation of original claims 1-20 and the addition of new claims 21-40 have been acknowledge. Accordingly, the examiner has determined that new independent claims 21, 37 and 39 each present respective subject matter therein which distinguish over the prior art of record and it should be noted that no new prior art was uncovered that meet the subject matter in new independent claims 21, 27 & 39. Therefore, independent claims 21, 37 & 39, and appropriate claims dependent therefrom have been determined to be allowable. Moreover, the newly presented claims overcome the paragraph 112(b) issues set forth against original claims 1-20. However, it should be noted that new claims 24-27 do raise new paragraph 112(b) issues, as set forth above, which need to be addressed by applicants’ in any future response. Additionally, the objections to the specification and drawings raised by the examiner in the last Office action have been substantially addressed by applicants’ response with the exception of the issues raised by the examiner to the specification, as set forth above, which again need to be addressed by applicants’ in any future response.
Claims 24-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 21-23, 28-36; 37, 38; 39, 40 are allowable over the prior art of record since the closest prior art of record to Toncich, while teaching separate driving voltage sources to control the tunable component therein does not teach or suggest that: the driving voltage sources provide differential bias voltages (i.e. independent claim 21), that the driving voltages sources do not provide voltages in different voltage ranges (i.e. independent claim 37) and that the driving voltage sources do not comprise source follower amplifiers (i.e. independent claim 39).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to BENNY T LEE at telephone number (571)272-1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee