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 .
Unity of Invention
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Figs. 2-3) in the reply filed on 6/29/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/29/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Syrett et al. (US 4,686,496).
Syrett (e.g. Figs. 1-3) teaches an isolator/filter unit including:
Regarding Claim 1, an isolation function portion (30); and a filtering function portion (e.g. resonators 44), wherein the isolation function portion is integrated with the filtering function portion as a whole (e.g. see Fig. 1, the isolator and filter are in a common chassis body 10), and wherein the isolation function portion operates as a circulator or an isolator (e.g. see Col. 4, lines 35-42).
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the isolation function portion is non-conductively coupled to the filtering function portion, or the isolation function portion is conductively connected to the filtering function portion (e.g. see Fig. 1, coupling portion 48, 50 is coupled to the resonator from the isolator in a spaced/capacitive relationship).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the isolation-filtering unit has at least one isolation function input port (e.g. 28) and at least one filtering function input-output port (e.g. 50 is a port to the filter).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the isolation-filtering unit has first, second and third ports (e.g. two 28s and at 26 the isolator is terminated port to a resistor/load, see Col. 4, lines 35-42), wherein the first and second ports are configured for transmitting a signal from the first port to the second port and isolating a signal transmitted from the second port to the first port while achieving a filtering function; wherein the second and third ports are configured for transmitting a signal from the second port to the third port and isolating a signal transmitted from the third port to the second port while achieving a filtering function; wherein the first and third ports are configured for isolating a signal transmitted from the first port to the third port (e.g. the Syrett device would function the same as the presently claimed invention since it is the same structurally as the presently claimed invention since, fundamentally, isolators pass a signal in one direction between two of the ports and reflected signals from the second port are directed to the third or load port); and wherein the third port is selectively configured for being terminated by a load (e.g. 26, Col. 4, lines 35-42, a resistance is the load).
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the isolation-filtering unit comprises a chassis for both the isolation function portion and the filtering function portion (e.g. see Fig. 1, the isolator and filter are in a common chassis body 10).
Regarding Claim 6, wherein the filtering function portion comprises the chassis and a plurality of resonators (44) provided within the chassis, the isolation function portion comprises the chassis and a center conductor (e.g. the center conductor pattern of 32) provided within the chassis, and the resonators are connected to the center conductor by a connecting conductor (e.g. connecting conductor 50/46/48 electrically connects the isolator to the resonators).
Regarding Claim 7, wherein the connecting conductor is extended from the center conductor of the isolation function portion and is connected to the resonators of the filtering function portion (e.g. connecting conductor 50/46/48 extends from the center conductor pattern of isolator 30 and electrically connects the isolator to the resonators).
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the center conductor is inductively coupled to the resonators; or the center conductor is capacitively coupled to the resonators (e.g. see Fig. 1, coupling portion 48, 50 is connected to the isolator pattern inductively and is coupled to the resonator in a spaced/capacitive relationship).
Regarding Claim 12, a cover (e.g. lid/cover 12) provided over the chassis to enclose the resonators, the connecting conductor and the isolation function portion.
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the cover is made of a metal material, or of a plastic material with a metalized surface (e.g. lid/cover 12 is metal, see Col. 3, lines 1-9).
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.
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 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syrett et al. (US 4,686,496) in combination with Zhang (CN 213460033U cited by applicant).
Syrett teaches an isolator/filter unit as described above including that the chassis body 10 is metal (e.g. Col. 3, lines 1-9).
However, Syrett does not teach that the resonators can be metal or explicitly teach that the connecting conductor is metal (Claim 11) or that the connecting conductor is connected to the resonators by soldering (Claim 8).
Zhang (e.g. Fig. 2) teaches a combined isolator and filter device including that the resonators can be metal and the center conductor (17) of the isolator can be connected to the resonators by a connecting conductor 21 that is welded to the resonators (e.g. see page 3 of the translation).
It would have been considered obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Syrett filter to have been a metal resonator filter having the connecting conductor welded to the resonator such as taught by Zhang in place of the coupled dielectric resonator filter of Syrett, because the substitution would have been a mere selection of art-recognized alternative resonator filter types to be integrated with an isolator, which is the same problem solving area of both Syrett and Zhang, and the change of resonator types would have provided the advantageous benefit of functioning at an alternative resonance mode based on the user’s signaling requirements. Also, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the welding to instead have been soldering, because soldering is a well-known alternative electrical connection means to welding for providing a reliable connection, and also note that the term welding is often misused when meaning to refer to soldering. Furthermore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the center conductor of the isolator to have been metal, because metals such as copper are well-known center conductor materials for isolators to provide a good conductor for optimizing signal propagation in an isolator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1762. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM to 5PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/Stephen E. Jones/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights