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 2025-12-18 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-18 are pending in this application. Claim(s) 1, has been amended. Claim(s) 18 has/have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and its dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald (US-20220373592-A1) in view of Noda (US-20070245179-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fitzgerald teaches a base (Figure 3C: MEMs switch block, 354);
a first DUT terminal (Fig 3C: terminal, 358-1) for the device under test (Fig 3C: DUT, 104), the first DUT terminal being arranged on the base (Can be seen in Fig 3C);
a first DC terminal for the DC test (Fig 3C: terminals 370-1 through 370-4), the first DC terminal being arranged on the base (Can be seen in Fig 3C);
a first RF terminal for the RF test (Fig 3C: terminal, 358-4), the first RF terminal being arranged on the base (Can be seen in Fig 3C);
a first switching section connected to the first DUT terminal and the first RF terminal (Fig 3C shows switches located within the MEMs switch block, 354, the switches shown in Fig 6A are the switches used in the embodiment shown in Fig 3C. Para [0080] teaches the switches shown in Figs 6A-6D are examples of MEMs switches in the various embodiments shown throughout.),
the first switching section being switchable between an on state and an off state, the first switching section being configured to electrically connect the first DUT terminal and the first RF terminal in the on state and electrically disconnect the first DUT terminal and the first RF terminal in the off state (Fig 6A shows the switch capable of switching the RF path on and off),
the first DUT terminal and the switching device connected such that a DC path is always connected to the first DUT terminal (Fig 6A shows a DC path that is always connected to the DUT terminal through the resistor 602).
Fitzgerald does not teach a first low-pass filter connected to the first DUT terminal and the first DC terminal.
However, Noda teaches a first low-pass filter (Fig 15: L1 & C1 constitute a low-pass filter, Para [0081] teaches the coils L1-L4 attenuate AC component) connected to the first DUT terminal and the first DC terminal (Refer to annotated Fig 15 of Noda, the low pass filter can be seen on the path directly connected to the DC terminal and connected to the RF path that is connected to the DUT terminal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the switching device of Fitzgerald to include the low pass filter of Noda. A motivation for this modification is that the low-pass filters can block AC signals and pass DC signals as taught in Noda in paragraph [0081].
The combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda would necessarily teach the limitation, the first low-pass filter being connected to the first DUT terminal between the first DUT terminal and the switching device (Refer to annotated Figure 3C of Fitzgerald for how the low pass filters would be arranged in the combination).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches a second DUT terminal for the device under test (Fitzgerald - Though unlabeled, can be seen in Fig 3C next to the first DUT terminal, 358-1), the second DUT terminal being arranged on the base (Fitzgerald - Can be seen in Fig 3C);
a second DC terminal for the DC test (Fitzgerald - Fig 3C: terminals 370-1 through 370-4), the second DC terminal being arranged on the base (Fitzgerald - Can be seen in Fig 3C);
a second RF terminal for the RF test (Fitzgerald - Though unlabeled, can be seen in Fig 3C next to terminal 358-4), the second RF terminal being arranged on the base (Fitzgerald - Can be seen in Fig 3C);
a second low-pass filter connected to the second DUT terminal and the second DC terminal (Noda - Fig 15: L2 & C2 constitute a low-pass filter, Para [0081] teaches the coils L1-L4 attenuate AC component); and
a second switching section (Fitzgerald - Fig 3C: shows multiple switching sections) connected to the second DUT terminal and the second RF terminal, the second switching section being switchable between an on state and an off state, the second switching section being configured to electrically connect the second DUT terminal and the second RF terminal in the on state and electrically disconnect the second DUT terminal and the second RF terminal in the off state (Fitzgerald - Fig 6A shows the switch capable of switching the RF path on and off). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 3, Fitzgerald further teaches wherein the base includes a first side edge, and a second side edge opposite the first side edge (Can be seen in Fig 3C).
The combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda does not explicitly teach the first DUT terminal and the second DUT terminal are arranged along the first side edge, and the first RF terminal and the second RF terminal are arranged along the second side edge.
However, it has been held In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) that it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the DUT terminals and RF terminals of Noda to be arranged along the first side edge and along the second side edge respectively. A motivation for this modification is terminal placement may be necessitated by the testing equipment used.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda does not teach wherein the first DUT terminal and the first RF terminal are arranged side by side with each other in a first direction from the first side edge to the second side edge, and the second DUT terminal and the second RF terminal are arranged side by side in the first direction.
However, it has been held In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) that it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the DUT terminals and RF terminals of Noda to be arranged side by side with each other in a first direction from the first side edge to the second side edge. A motivation for this modification is terminal placement may be necessitated by the testing equipment used.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda does not teach wherein the first DC terminal is arranged between the first DUT terminal and the second DUT terminal on the first side edge.
However, it has been held In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) that it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the first DC terminal of Noda to be arranged between the DUT terminals on a first side edge. A motivation for this modification is terminal placement may be necessitated by the testing equipment used.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda does not teach wherein the second DC terminal is arranged between the first RF terminal and the second RF terminal on the second side edge.
However, it has been held In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) that it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the second DC terminal of Noda to be arranged between the RF terminals on a second side edge. A motivation for this modification is terminal placement may be necessitated by the testing equipment used.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the base includes a first RF line extending from the first DUT terminal to the first RF terminal and a first DC line extending from the first DUT terminal to the first DC terminal, the first DC line being connected to the first DUT terminal between the first DUT terminal and the first switching section (Fitzgerald - Can be seen in the annotated Fig 3C of Fitzgerald, which has the switching of Fig 6A combined with the circuit of Fig 3C), the first switching section is connected to the first RF line (Can be seen in Fig 6A), and the first low-pass filter is connected to the first DC line (this would necessarily be the result of the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda, as the low-pass filter of Noda is placed between these terminals).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 15 of Noda
PNG
media_image2.png
1093
1184
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3C of Fitzgerald
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgerald in view of Noda, in further view of Xu (TW-H458649-U, from applicant IDS – Refer to machine translation, from previous office action, for references cited).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda does not explicitly teach a drive section configured to switch the first switching section and/or the second switching section between the on state and the off state;
a first drive terminal connected to the drive; and
a second drive terminal connected to the drive.
However, Xu teaches a drive section (Fig 5: control unit, 60) configured to switch the first switching section and/or the second switching section between the on state and the off state (Page 4, 2nd paragraph (boxed in the attached NPL) teaches the control circuit switches the DC-RF switches);
a first drive terminal connected to the drive section (Fig 5 shows three terminals for the drive circuit); and
a second drive terminal connected to the drive section (Fig 5 shows three terminals for the drive circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the switches of Fitzgerald to incorporate the drive section of Xu. A motivation for this modification is to accurately control when the DC or RF test is to be performed as taught by Xu on page 4, paragraph 2.
The combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda in view of Xu does not teach wherein the first drive terminal is arranged between the first DUT terminal and the second DUT terminal on the first side edge. However, it has been held In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) that it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the first drive terminal of the combination to be arranged between the DUT terminals on a first side edge. A motivation for this modification is terminal placement may be necessitated by the testing equipment used.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda does not explicitly teach a drive section configured to switch the first switching section and/or the second switching section between the on state and the off state;
a first drive terminal connected to the drive; and
a second drive terminal connected to the drive.
However, Xu teaches a drive section (Fig 5: control unit, 60) configured to switch the first switching section and/or the second switching section between the on state and the off state (Page 4, 2nd paragraph (boxed in the attached NPL) teaches the control circuit switches the DC-RF switches);
a first drive terminal connected to the drive section (Fig 5 shows three terminals for the drive circuit); and
a second drive terminal connected to the drive section (Fig 5 shows three terminals for the drive circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the switches of Fitzgerald in view of Noda to incorporate the drive section of Xu. A motivation for this modification is to accurately control when the DC or RF test is to be performed as taught by Xu on page 4, paragraph 2.
The combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda in view of Xu does not teach wherein the second drive terminal is arranged between the first RF terminal and the second RF terminal on the second side edge. However, it has been held In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) that it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the second drive terminal of the combination to be arranged between the RF terminals on a second side edge. A motivation for this modification is terminal placement may be necessitated by the testing equipment used.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda does not explicitly teach a drive section configured to switch the first switching section and/or the second switching section between the on state and the off state;
a first drive terminal connected to the drive; and
a second drive terminal connected to the drive.
However, Xu teaches a drive section (Fig 5: control unit, 60) configured to switch the first switching section and/or the second switching section between the on state and the off state (Page 4, 2nd paragraph (boxed in the attached NPL) teaches the control circuit switches the DC-RF switches);
a first drive terminal connected to the drive section (Fig 5 shows three terminals for the drive circuit); and
a second drive terminal connected to the drive section (Fig 5 shows three terminals for the drive circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the switches of Fitzgerald in view of Noda to incorporate the drive section of Xu. A motivation for this modification is to accurately control when the DC or RF test is to be performed as taught by Xu on page 4, paragraph 2.
The combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda in view of Xu does not teach wherein the first DUT terminal, the second DUT terminal, the first drive terminal, and the second drive terminal are arranged along the first side edge, and
the first RF terminal, the second RF terminal, the first DC terminal, and the second DC terminal are arranged along the second side edge.
However, it has been held In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) that it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the DUT and drive terminals of the combination to be arranged along a first side edge and RF and DC terminals along a second side edge. A motivation for this modification is terminal placement may be necessitated by the testing equipment used.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda teaches wherein the base includes a third side edge connected to the first side edge and the second side edge (Can be seen in Figure 30), and
a fourth side edge connected to the first side edge and the second side edge and arranged opposite to the third side edge (Can be seen in Figure 30),
The combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda does not explicitly teach a drive section configured to switch the first switching section and/or the second switching section between the on state and the off state;
a first drive terminal connected to the drive; and
a second drive terminal connected to the drive.
However, Xu teaches a drive section (Fig 5: control unit, 60) configured to switch the first switching section and/or the second switching section between the on state and the off state (Page 4, 2nd paragraph (boxed in the attached NPL) teaches the control circuit switches the DC-RF switches);
a first drive terminal connected to the drive section (Fig 5 shows three terminals for the drive circuit); and
a second drive terminal connected to the drive section (Fig 5 shows three terminals for the drive circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the switches of Fitzgerald in view of Noda to incorporate the drive section of Xu. A motivation for this modification is to accurately control when the DC or RF test is to be performed as taught by Xu on page 4, paragraph 2.
The combination of Fitzgerald in view of Noda in view of Xu does not teach the first DUT terminal and the second DUT terminal are arranged along the first side edge, the first RF terminal and the second RF terminal are arranged along the second side edge, the first drive terminal and the second drive terminal are arranged along the third side edge, and the first DC terminal and the second DC terminal are arranged along the fourth side edge.
However, it has been held In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) that it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have rearranged the DUT, RF, drive and DC terminals of the combination to be arranged along a first, second, third and fourth side edge respectively. A motivation for this modification is terminal placement may be necessitated by the testing equipment used.
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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858