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 § 112
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 15-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 15, it is not clear as to how “a second tunable filter” at lines 9-10 connects to other circuit elements of the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripley (US 2017/0063411 A1) in view of Anthony (US 2016/0381649 A1) and Cabanillas (US 2013/0187712 A1).
As to claim 1, Ripley discloses a radio frequency system with tunable notch filtering (see at least figure 1, notch filter 12), the radio frequency system comprising: a power amplifier 122, 123 (see at least figure 12) configured to provide a radio frequency signal; an antenna switch 14 (see at least figure 1) coupled to at least a radio frequency signal path (see legend “I/O port”); and a second tunable filter 12. Ripley fails to disclose a first tunable filter having at least a first tunable notch corresponding to a harmonic of the radio frequency signal; a multi-throw switch coupled to the power amplifier by way of at least the first tunable filter; and the antenna switch 14 (see at least figure 1) configured to selectively electrically connect the radio frequency signal path to the second tunable filter 12.
Anthony discloses a first tunable filter 47 (see at least figure 5B) having at least a first tunable notch corresponding to a harmonic of the radio frequency signal (it is noted that the notch filter 17 is inherently tunable by a technician and/or a machine); a multi-throw switch 43B coupled to a power amplifier 11A by way of at least the first tunable filter 47; an antenna ANT coupled to the multi-throw switch 43B by way of at least a radio frequency signal path. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Anthony to Ripley, in order to yield predictable results such as improving signal quality by using a first tunable filter 47.
The combination of Ripley and Anthony fails to disclose the second tunable filter 12 (see Ripley, figure 1) having at least two tunable notches configured to filter harmonics, the second tunable filter being an L network. Cabanillas discloses a tunable filter 550a (see figure 6) having at least two tunable notches (see a first notch formed by parallel-connected C 662 and L 652; a second notch formed by series-connected C 664 and L 654) configured to filter harmonics (see paragraph [0045]), the second tunable filter being an L network (see figure 6 which shows L network formed by two pairs of LC 652, 662 and LC 654, 664). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Cabanillas to the combination of Ripley and Anthony, in order to yield predictable results such as improving signal quality by using the L network notch filter 550a.
The combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas fails to disclose the second tunable notch corresponding to a lower order harmonic of the radio frequency signal than the harmonic of the radio frequency signal. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary notch value of the second tunable notch filter. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from having the second tunable notch corresponding to a lower order harmonic of the radio frequency signal than the harmonic of the radio frequency signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as improving design flexibility of the first and second tunable notch filters.
As to claims 2-5, 14, 16-18, the modified Ripley fails to disclose various values of harmonic and lower order harmonic of the RF signal. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary harmonic and lower order harmonic of the RF signal. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from having a harmonic and a lower order harmonic of the radio frequency signal as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as improving design flexibility of the first and second tunable notch filters.
As to claim 6, the modified Ripley discloses that the second tunable filter 550a (see Cabanillas, figure 6) has a third tunable notch (see either a notch formed by parallel-connected C 662 and L 652; or another notch formed by series-connected C 664 and L 654).
As to claim 7, the modified Ripley discloses that the second tunable filter 550a is an L network (see Cabanillas, figure 6 which shows L network formed by two pairs of LC 652, 662 and LC 654, 664).
As to claim 8, the modified Ripley discloses that the L network 550a (see Cabanillas, figure 6) includes a tunable capacitance circuit 662 in parallel with an inductor 652 arranged to provide the second tunable notch.
As to claim 9, the modified Ripley discloses that the L network 550a (see Cabanillas, figure 6) includes shunt circuit arranged to provide the second tunable notch, the shunt circuit including a tunable capacitance circuit 664 in series with an inductor 654.
As to claim 10, the modified Ripley fails to disclose that the first tunable filter 47 (see Anthony, figure 5B) also has a Wi-Fi notch. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary notch value of the first tunable filter 47. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from having a Wi-Fi notch. Moreover, the examiner takes Official Notice that such a Wi-Fi notch filter is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as improving design flexibility of the first tunable notch filter.
As to claim 12, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. In addition, both Ripley and Cabanillas each discloses that the second notch filter 12 (see Ripley, figure 1), and the second notch filter 550a (see Cabanillas, figure 6) is tunable; therefore, as the combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas is made, it would obvious that both of the first filter 47 (see Anthony, figure 5B) and the second filter 12 (see Ripley, figure 1) are tunable. Accordingly, the combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas would read on the claimed limitations “adjusting a state of the first tunable filter 47 (see Anthony, figure 5B) from the first state to a second state to thereby change a location of the first tunable notch in a frequency domain; and filtering the radio frequency signal from the power amplifier 11A with the first tunable filter 47 in the second state”.
As to claim 13, both Ripley and Cabanillas each discloses that the second notch filter 12 (see Ripley, figure 1), and the second notch filter 550a (see Cabanillas, figure 6) is tunable; therefore, the combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas would read on the claimed limitations “adjusting a location of the second tunable notch 12 (see Ripley, figure 1) in the frequency domain; and filtering the output signal from the antenna switch 14 with the second tunable filter 12 after said adjusting the location of the second tunable notch”.
As to claim 15, Ripley discloses a radio frequency system with tunable notch filtering (see at least figure 1, notch filter 12), the radio frequency system comprising: a power amplifier 122, 123 (see at least figure 12) configured to provide a radio frequency signal; an antenna switch 14 (see at least figure 1) coupled to at least a radio frequency signal path (see legend “I/O port”); and a second tunable filter 12. Ripley fails to disclose a first tunable filter; a multi-throw switch coupled to the power amplifier by way of at least the first tunable filter. Anthony discloses a first tunable filter 47 (see at least figure 5B); a multi-throw switch 43B coupled to a power amplifier 11A by way of at least the first tunable filter 47; an antenna ANT coupled to the multi-throw switch 43B by way of at least a radio frequency signal path. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Anthony to Ripley, in order to yield predictable results such as improving signal quality by using a first tunable filter 47.
The combination of Ripley and Anthony fails to disclose the second tunable filter 12 (see Ripley, figure 1) having at least two tunable notches configured to filter harmonics, the second tunable filter being an L network. Cabanillas discloses a tunable filter 550a (see figure 6) having at least two tunable notches (see a first notch formed by parallel-connected C 662 and L 652; a second notch formed by series-connected C 664 and L 654) configured to filter harmonics (see paragraph [0045]), the second tunable filter being an L network (see figure 6 which shows L network formed by two pairs of LC 652, 662 and LC 654, 664). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Cabanillas to the combination of Ripley and Anthony, in order to yield predictable results such as improving signal quality by using the L network notch filter 550a.
As to claim 19, the combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas discloses that the L network 550a (see Cabanillas, figure 6) includes network includes a parallel inductor-capacitor circuit (see a pair of L 652, and C 662); and a shunt series inductor-capacitor circuit (see a pair of L 654, and C 664), the parallel inductor-capacitor circuit including a first tunable capacitance circuit C 662, and the shunt series inductor-capacitor circuit including a second tunable capacitance circuit C 664.
As to claim 20, the combination of Ripley, Anthony, and Cabanillas discloses that the shunt series inductor-capacitor circuit (see Cabanillas, figure 6, LC 652, 662) is coupled to the antenna switch 14 (see Ripley, figure 1) by way of the parallel inductor-capacitor circuit (see Cabanillas, figure 6, LC 652, 662).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
As to independent claim 11, the combination of Ripley (US 2017/0063411 A1), Anthony (US 2016/0381649 A1), and Cabanillas (US 2013/0187712 A1) fails to disclose, or render obvious, a tunable shunt capacitance circuit coupled to a node between the first tunable filter and the multi-throw switch, the tunable shunt capacitance circuit being configured to tune a load line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ripley (US 2020/0007177 A1); Pehlke (US 2021/0143852 A1); Kim (US 2018/0226946 A1) disclose communication circuits having notch filters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights