The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election of species I, claims 1-3, 7-10 in the reply filed on 18 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 4-6, 11, 12; 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 June 2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, line 24, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 2, lines 6, 17, note that --to each other-- should be inserted after “adjacently”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization; lines 12, 14, 15, note that the term “dispose” should be rewritten as --include--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization; lines 12, 14, note that --therein-- should be inserted after “circuit”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization; line 16, note that --therein-- should be inserted after “coupler” for an appropriate characterization; line 21, note that --description-- should be inserted after “above” for an appropriate characterization. Page 3, line 1, note that the term “outputting” should be rewritten as --outputted-- for an appropriate characterization; line 15, note that --DETAIL-- should be inserted prior to “DESCRIPTION” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 7, line 14, note that the label “IDP1 to IDPN” should be rewritten as --IDP1, IDP2, … IDPN-- for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 2D; line 16, note that the label “SW1 to SWN+1” should be rewritten as --SW1, SW2, … SWN+1-- for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 2D; line 24, note that the recitation of “element 131” should be rewritten as --element 231-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 9, line 13, note that the label “PD46 to PD48” should be rewritten as --PD46, PD47 and PD48-- for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 4. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that the following reference labels appearing in the indicated drawings need to be correspondingly described in the specification description of such drawings for clarity and completeness of description: FIGS. 2B, 2C, 2D (232, 240, CPin, CPout, CPL, CPisL, Load, VR1); FIG. 2B, “200”; FIG. 2C, “SWN+1”. 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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, note that the recitation of “is less than a threshold value” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear what characterizes such a “threshold value”. Appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 1, line 4, note that --to each other-- should be inserted after “adjacently” for an appropriate characterization.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPorte et al in view of Sun et al.
LaPorte et al (i.e. Fig. 1) discloses a front-end circuit, comprising: an amplifying circuit (i.e. transmit amplifiers 18) having a second (i.e. output) end connected to a first end (i.e. left side) of a switching circuit (i.e. switch 13’); a coupler (i.e. 2) includes a first coupling element and a second coupling element arranged adjacent to each other (i.e. not labeled, but is evident from the schematic depiction in FIG. 1), where the first coupling element has a first end (i.e. terminal IN) coupled to a second end (i.e. right side) of the switching circuit (13’) and a second end (i.e. terminal OUT) coupled to a signal transmission end (i.e. antenna 15’). Regarding claim 9, note that the switch (13’) is configured to switch between a transmit (i.e. Tx) mode and a receive (i.e. Rx) relative to a communication block (i.e. 11), where in the receive mode, the received signal passes through the switch to a low noise amplifier, which is necessarily present in any receive path or channel, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the coupler in LaPorte et al does not disclose a first coupling element including a bonding wire connected in parallel to the first coupling elements at the first and second ends thereof.
Sun et al (i.e. FIG.8A) discloses a coupler (i.e. 100) including a first coupling element (i.e. driver arm 102) and a second coupling element (i.e. coupler arm 104), which are adjacently coupled to each other. Moreover, as evident from FIG. 8A, note that the first coupling element (102) further includes a conductive strip (122) having ends thereof connected to a bonding wire (loop 124), such that the first coupling element (102/122) and bonding wire (124) are arranged in parallel with each other, as well as having substantially the same length.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have modified the generic first coupling element in the coupler of LaPorte et al to have taken the form of a first coupling element connected in parallel to a bonding wire, such as taught by Sun et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent first coupling elements that perform the equivalent function, especially since the generic nature of the first coupling element in LaPorte et al would have suggested that any art recognized equivalent first coupling element, such as the first coupling element having a bonding wire connected thereto, as taught by Sun et al would have been usable therein, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Regarding claim 3, note that the resultant combination discloses the claimed invention except for the first and second coupling elements being coupled to or terminated by respective bonding pads. As evident from related FIG. 12A, the coupler (i.e. 100) includes first and second coupling elements (102, 104) connected to or terminated by bonding pads (i.e. not labeled, but are evident from related FIG. 12A). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have further modified the resultant combination to have included the modified coupler having first and second coupling elements being attached to or terminated by bonding pads, such as taught in related FIG. 12A of Sun et al. Such a modification would have been considered obvious for providing the benefit of improved input and output coupling afforded by these bonding pads, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Regarding claim 10, note that the resultant combination discloses the claimed invention except for the second coupling element including one end thereof being a coupling end and the other end of the second coupling element being connected to a load. As evident from related FIG. 27, a coupler includes a second coupling element (i.e. coupler arm 224) having a coupling end (i.e. CPLout) at one end thereof and having the other end thereof (i.e. CPLin) coupled to or terminated by a load (i.e. terminated by a resistive load). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have further modified the second coupling element of the resultant combination to have included a coupling end and an end coupled to/terminated by a resistive load, such as taught by related FIG. 27 of Sun et al. Such a further modification would have been considered obvious for providing a recognized manner of operating such couplers, as known to one of ordinary skill in the art, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tokuda et al discloses a directional coupler where the first coupling element includes two main lines connected in parallel to each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights