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 Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: The dependency should be changed to depending from Claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a protection unit configured to” in claim 1, “protection unit is controllable to” in Claim 2, “state control unit is configured to” in Claim 8, “state control unit is configured to” in Claim 9, “state control unit is configured to” in Claim 10, “protection unit is configured …. to” in Claim 15, “state control unit is configured to” in Claim 19, and “state control unit is configured to” in Claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
PLEASE NOTE: Claims 1, 2, 15 were also examined to determine compliance under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) and it was determined that said claims meet the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). The subject matter contained in said claims is described in the specification in such a way as to reasonable convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention (Please See Figure 2, Paragraphs 0057, 0058 of Applicants’ specification). The written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly links the structure, material, or acts to the function (Please See Figure 2, Paragraphs 0057, 0058 of Applicants’ specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 – 10, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While the specification of the instant application does teach the claimed “state control unit” via Figure 2, paragraph 0051 (state control unit (138)), said specification does not specifically recite or teach the corresponding structure of the claimed “state control unit”. The diagrams or figures that show said state control unit do not adequately teach the corresponding structure as said unit is shown in the figure as just a box or square. All claims that depend from Claims 8 – 10, 19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
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.
Claim limitation “state control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification of the instant application does teach the claimed “state control unit” via Figure 2, paragraph 0051 (state control unit (138)), said specification does not specifically recite or teach the corresponding structure of the claimed “state control unit”. The diagrams or figures that show said state control unit do not adequately teach the corresponding structure as said unit is shown in the figure as just a box or square. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All claims that depend from Claims 8 – 10, 19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 4 – 10, 14 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.
Claims 4, 6 recites the limitations “the circuit arrangement” in lines 2 and lines 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first switch unit and the second switch unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the reference terminal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the first, second, and/or third switch unit” in lines 3 – 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9, 10 recites the limitations “the state control unit” in lines 2 and lines 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9, 10 recites the limitations “the at least one switch” in line 2 and lines 2 -3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recited the limitations “the IC” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the reference terminal” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the second, and/or third switch unit” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the state control unit” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recited the limitation “the pull-down connection” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 8 – 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Huot-Marchand et al. (US 2021/0050734), hereafter Marchand in view of Hsia (US 2015/0036247).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 1, Marchand teaches a device comprising: a signal interface, referred to as device interface, for sending and/or receiving a communication signal (Figure 1, Section 0046, interface (112)), a first communication unit (Figure 1, Section 0046, SPI/TPL transceiver (105)), a second communication unit (Figure 1, Section 0046, SPI/TPL transceiver (105)), wherein the first communication unit comprises a first transceiver (Figure 1, Section 0046, SPI/TPL transceiver (105)), wherein the second communication unit comprises a second transceiver (Figure 1, Section 0046, SPI/TPL transceiver (105)), wherein the second transceiver is coupled to the device interface (Figure 1, SPI/TPL transceiver coupled to interface (112)).
Marchand does not teach another unit, referred to as a protection unit, wherein the protection unit is coupled between the first transceiver and the device interface, wherein the protection unit is configured to change from a first state to a second state, wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the first state, to enable a first signal connection between the device interface and the first transceiver, and wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the second state, to disable the first signal connection.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches a protection unit, wherein the protection unit is coupled between an input terminal and an output terminal (Figure 1, protection circuit (120) coupled between input and output terminals (N1, N2) (Sections 0029 – 0031)), wherein the protection unit is configured to change from a first state to a second state, wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the first state, to enable a first signal connection between input and output terminals, and wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the second state, to disable the first signal connection (Figure 1, Sections 0029 – 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia. The combination of Marchand and Hsia teaches wherein the protection unit is coupled between the first transceiver and the device interface, wherein the protection unit is configured to change from a first state to a second state, wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the first state, to enable a first signal connection between the device interface and the first transceiver, and wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the second state, to disable the first signal connection.
Regarding Claim 15, Marchand teaches a method for a device comprising a signal interface referred to as a device interface, a first communication unit, and a second communication unit (Figure 1, Section 0046, interface (112), SPI/TPL transceivers (105) read on the first and second communication units), wherein the device interface preferably comprises at least one terminal (Figure 1, there would need to be some kind of connector or terminal that enables the interface (112) to be established), wherein the first communication unit comprises a first transceiver (Figure 1, Section 0046, transceivers (105)), wherein the second communication unit comprises a second transceiver (Figure 1, Section 0046, transceivers (105)), wherein the second transceiver is coupled to the device interface (Figure 1, SPI/TPL transceiver coupled to interface (112)),.
Marchand does not teach a protection unit, wherein the protection unit is coupled between the first transceiver and the device interface, the method comprising the step of: controlling the protection unit such that the protection unit changes from a first state to a second state, wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the first state, to enable a first signal connection between the device interface and the first transceiver, and wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the second state, to disable the first signal connection.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches wherein the protection unit is coupled between an input terminal and an output terminal (Figure 1, protection circuit (120) coupled between input and output terminals (N1, N2) (Sections 0029 – 0031)), the method comprising the step of: controlling the protection unit such that the protection unit changes from a first state to a second state, wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the first state, to enable a first signal connection between input and output terminals, and wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the second state, to disable the first signal connection (Figure 1, Sections 0029 – 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia. The combination of Marchand and Hsia teaches wherein the protection unit is coupled between the first transceiver and the device interface, the method comprising the step of: controlling the protection unit such that the protection unit changes from a first state to a second state, wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the first state, to enable a first signal connection between the device interface and the first transceiver, and wherein the protection unit is configured, if in the second state, to disable the first signal connection.
Regarding Claim 2, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Hsia further teaches wherein the protection unit is controllable to change from the first state to the second state, or vice versa (Section 0030).
Regarding Claims 3, 16, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 15. Marchand further teaches wherein the first communication unit comprises a first signal interface, wherein the second communication unit comprises a second signal interface (Figure 1, Section 0046, transmission line (110) is the signal interface), wherein the second signal interface of the second communication device is coupled to the device interface (Figure 1, Section 0046, transmission line (110) is coupled to the interface (112) via the transceiver (105)).
Marchand does not teach wherein the protection unit comprises a third signal interface, a fourth signal interface and a circuit arrangement, wherein the first signal interface of the first communication unit is coupled to the third signal interface of the protection unit, wherein the fourth signal interface of the protection unit is coupled to the first transceiver, wherein the circuit arrangement extends from the third signal interface to the fourth signal interface, such that the circuit arrangement forms an electrical connection, referred to as a main connection, between the third signal interface and the fourth signal interface, wherein the circuit arrangement comprises a first switch unit integrated into the main connection, and wherein the first switch unit is configured to disconnect or reconnect the main connection at the first switch unit/wherein the method also comprises: controlling the first switch unit such that the first switch unit either disconnects or reconnects the main connection at the first switch unit.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches wherein the protection unit comprises a third signal interface, a fourth signal interface and a circuit arrangement (Figure 1, input terminal (N1) connection, output terminal (N2) connection are the interfaces), wherein the first signal interface of a transmitter is coupled to the third signal interface of the protection unit, wherein the fourth signal interface of the protection unit is coupled to the transmitter (Figure 1, transmission element (110) coupled to input and output terminals (N1, N2)), wherein the circuit arrangement extends from the third signal interface to the fourth signal interface, such that the circuit arrangement forms an electrical connection, referred to as a main connection, between the third signal interface and the fourth signal interface (Figure 1, main connection between the input and output terminals (N1, N2)), wherein the circuit arrangement comprises a first switch unit integrated into the main connection, and wherein the first switch unit is configured to disconnect or reconnect the main connection at the first switch unit/controlling the first switch unit such that the first switch unit either disconnects or reconnects the main connection at the first switch unit (Figure 1, Sections 0029 – 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia. The combination of Marchand and Hsia teaches wherein the first signal interface of the first communication unit is coupled to the third signal interface of the protection unit, wherein the fourth signal interface of the protection unit is coupled to the first transceiver.
Regarding Claims 8, 17, 19, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 15, 3. Marchand does not teach wherein the device comprises a control unit referred to as a state control unit, wherein the state control unit is configured to control the first, second and/or third switch unit/wherein the method comprises: the state control unit controlling the first switch unit to either disconnect or reconnect the main connection.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches a state control unit, wherein the state control unit is configured to control the first, second and/or third switch unit (Figure 1, driving switch (101) is the control unit)/the state control unit controlling the first switch unit to either disconnect or reconnect the main connection (Figure 1, Sections 0029 – 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia.
Regarding Claims 9, 20, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 3. Marchand does not teach wherein the state control unit is configured to control the at least one switch unit to enable the main connection and/or disconnect the pull-down connection so that the protection unit is in the first state.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches wherein the state control unit is configured to control the at least one switch unit to enable the main connection and/or disconnect the pull-down connection so that the protection unit is in the first state (Figure 1, Sections 0029 – 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia.
Regarding Claim 10, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Marchand does not teach wherein the state control unit is configured to control the at least one switch unit to disable the main connection and/or to connect the pull-down connection such that the protection unit is in the second state.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches wherein the state control unit is configured to control the at least one switch unit to disable the main connection and/or to connect the pull-down connection such that the protection unit is in the second state (Figure 1, Sections 0029 – 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia.
Regarding Claim 11, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Marchand further teaches wherein the first communication unit is configured to perform communication according to the SPI protocol (Section 0046).
Regarding Claim 12, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Marchand further teaches wherein the second communication unit is configured to perform communication according to the TPL protocol (Section 0046).
Regarding Claim 13, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Marchand does not teach wherein the protection unit and the first transceiver are formed by a common IC.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches wherein the protection unit and the first transceiver are formed by a common IC (Section 0025, the device can be integrated in the array arrangement of the IC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia.
Regarding Claim 14, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Marchand further teaches wherein the IC forms the first and second communication units (Section 0046, driver circuit comprising SPI/TPL transceiver, driver circuit reads on the IC).
Claims 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Marchand in view of Hsia (US 2015/0036247) and in further view of Nunez et al. (US 2016/0036260)
Regarding Claim 4, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Marchand in view of Hsia does not teach wherein the circuit arrangement comprises a second switch unit integrated into the main connection, the second switch unit is configured to disconnect or reconnect the main connection at the second switch unit.
Nunez, which also teaches over-voltage protection, teaches a second switch unit integrated into the main connection, the second switch unit is configured to disconnect or reconnect the main connection at the second switch unit (Figure 1, Section 0020, switches 112 and 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand in view of Hsia with the above features od Nunez for the purpose of continuing device operation when the voltage falls below a shutdown threshold due to a high current condition as taught by Nunez.
Regarding Claim 5, Marchand in view of Hsia and in further view of Nunez teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 4. Marchand in view of Hsia does not teach wherein the first switch unit and the second switch unit are connected in series.
Nunez, which also teaches over-voltage protection, teaches wherein the first switch unit and the second switch unit are connected in series (Figure 1, Section 0020, switches 112 and 114 are in series).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand in view of Hsia with the above features od Nunez for the purpose of continuing device operation when the voltage falls below a shutdown threshold due to a high current condition as taught by Nunez.
Claims 6, 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Marchand in view of Hsia (US 2015/0036247) and in further view of Pagano et al. (US 2016/0294180)
Regarding Claim 6, Marchand in view of Hsia teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Marchand does not teach wherein the circuit arrangement comprises a further electrical connection, referred to as a pull-down connection, coupled between the fourth signal interface and a terminal, referred to as a reference electrical potential terminal, of the circuit arrangement, wherein a third switch unit of the circuit arrangement is integrated into the pull-down connection, and wherein the third switch unit is configured to disconnect or reconnect as the pull-down connection.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches wherein the circuit arrangement comprises a further electrical connection, referred to as a pull-down connection, coupled between the fourth signal interface and a terminal, referred to as a reference electrical potential terminal of the circuit arrangement (Figure 1, pulldown connection comprises the resistor Zsub2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia.
Marchand in view of Hsia does not teach wherein a third switch unit of the circuit arrangement is integrated into the pull-down connection, and wherein the third switch unit is configured to disconnect or reconnect as the pull-down connection.
Pagano, which also teaches over-voltage protection, teaches wherein a third switch unit of the circuit arrangement is integrated into the pull-down connection, and wherein the third switch unit is configured to disconnect or reconnect as the pull-down connection (Figure 2, Section 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand in view of Hsia with the above features of Pagano for the purpose of providing over-voltage protection that is more power efficient as taught by Pagano.
Regarding Claims 7, 18, Marchand in view of Hsia and in further view of Pagano teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 6, 3. Marchand does not teach wherein the reference terminal is a ground terminal.
Hsia, which like Marchand (Section 0047), teaches voltage protection, teaches wherein the reference terminal is a ground terminal (Figure 1, Section 0031, ground terminal (see switch section circuit (103))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Marchand with the above features of Hsia for the purpose of reducing insertion loss and reducing overall system noise as taught by Hsia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND S DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00-2:30, 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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony S Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/RAYMOND S DEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Raymond S. Dean
June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights