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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (Fig. 6) in the reply filed on 4/15/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the different species would not present a burden in examination and that the species restriction does not include a discussion of the relationship of the different species. This is not found persuasive because the different embodiments present a burden to the examiner in both search and examination and are not likely to be found in the same prior part references or with the same search terms, and applicant has not indicated that the different species are obvious variants of each other. Also, the MPEP clearly indicates that in a species restriction requirement, the species are preferably identified by their figures, and the requirements for a proper species restriction action were followed (see MPEP 809.02(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant indicated that Claims 1-6, 10-13, and 15-18 read on the elected species. Accordingly, Claims 7-9, 14, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/15/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In Claim 6, the limitation of “the second line is attached to the first end of the second coupled line” does not properly further limit Claim 5 since Claim 5 recites that “the second line is coupled to the second end of the first coupled line” which opposite to Claim 6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 10, 16 ,and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Waterman et al. (GaAs Monolithic Lange and Wilkinson Couplers, cited by applicant).
Waterman (e.g. see Figs. 2-5) teaches a coupler including:
Regarding Claim 1, an input port (e.g. Port 1); an output port (e.g. Port 3); a coupled port (e.g. Port 2); an isolated port (e.g. Port 4); a main line (e.g. the line connecting between Port 1 and Port 3) coupled between the input port and the output port; a first coupled line displaced from the main line; a second coupled line displaced from the main line (e.g. the line connecting between Port 2 and Port 4 and a left and a right line that can be considered the first and second coupled lines respectively), a first line (e.g. lower left 50 ohm line in Fig. 2 connected to the isolated port 4) coupled to the first coupled line, the second coupled line, and the isolated port; and a second line (e.g. upper right 50 ohm line in Fig. 2 connected to the coupled port 2) coupled to the first coupled line, the second coupled line, and the coupled port.
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the first coupled line is displaced from the main line along a first direction, and wherein the second coupled line is displaced from the main line along a second direction opposite the first direction (e.g. see Fig. 2, the lines are offset/displaced in the left/right directions).
Regarding Claims 3 and 17, wherein each of the main line, the first coupled line, and the second coupled line are substantially parallel to each other when viewed in a top view of the coupled line coupler as each of the main line, the first coupled line, and the second coupled line extends along a length of the coupled line coupler (e.g. see Fig. 2, the lines are parallel along the length of the coupler).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein each of the main line, the first coupled line, and the second coupled line forms a respective L-shape or a respective serpentine shape (e.g. see Fig. 5b, the coupled line portion can be serpentine/folded).
Regarding Claim 5, wherein: the first line is coupled to a first end of the first coupled line, a first end of the second coupled line, and the isolated port; and the second line is coupled to a second end of the first coupled line, a second end of the second coupled line, and the coupled port (e.g. the lower left 50 ohm line portion and the upper right 50 ohm line portion are respectively coupled to the opposite ends of the first and second coupled lines that connect ports 2 and 4) .
Regarding Claim 10, wherein the first line and the second line are substantially perpendicular to both the first coupled line and the second coupled line (e.g. see Fig. 2, the 50 ohm lines are perpendicular to the coupled lines).
Regarding Claim 16, providing a signal to a main line of a coupled line coupler (e.g. see page 213, input power is provided at Port 1), wherein the main line is coupled between an input port of the coupled line coupler and an output port of the coupled line coupler; propagating the signal through the main line to provide a first portion of the signal at the output port (e.g. see page 213, Port 3 outputs some directed power); and coupling a second portion of the signal to a coupled port of the coupled line coupler via a first coupled line (e.g. see page 213, some power is coupled to coupled Port 2), a second coupled line, and a first line (e.g. for Claim 16, in Waterman the upper right 50 ohm line portion is the first line) of the coupled line coupler, wherein the first and second coupled lines are displaced from the main line, wherein the first line is coupled to the first coupled line, the second coupled line, and the coupled port (e.g. see the details of the device regarding Claim 1 above).
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 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterman et al. (GaAs Monolithic Lange and Wilkinson Couplers, cited by applicant) in view of Analui et al. (US 2015/0236390).
Waterman teaches a coupler as described above. However, Waterman does not appear to disclose bumps coupled to the ports (Claim 11), or the bumps are on an IC layout (Claim 13).
Also, the method step limitations in Claims 13 and 15 are not given patentable weight beyond the resultant final product structure since only the final product structural details are given weight in an apparatus claim from which Claims 13 and 15 depend.
Analui (e.g. Figs. 17A-D) provides the general teaching of providing bumps to make the coupler electrical connections for an integrated circuit.
It would have been considered routine and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have connected integrally the Waterman coupler ports with bumps to other devices such as generally taught by Analui, because the connection bumps would have provided the benefits of reliable electrical bond connections so that the coupler could be used in an integrated circuit system such as generally taught by Analui (e.g. see [0107]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterman et al. (GaAs Monolithic Lange and Wilkinson Couplers, cited by applicant) in view of Zhang et al.
Waterman teaches a coupler as described above. However, Waterman does not appear to disclose an amplifier connected to the input and an antenna connected to the output.
Zhang provides the general teaching of using a coupler for connecting an amplifier at the input of a coupler to an antenna at the output of the coupler (e.g. see Fig. 1 and [0065]).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Waterman coupler to have an amplifier and antenna at the respective input/output ports such as taught by Zhang because it would have been a mere selection of a specific and known use of a coupler for communication of signals to an antenna at an acceptable power level.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waterman et al. (GaAs Monolithic Lange and Wilkinson Couplers, cited by applicant) in view Wild et al. (US 2016/0064798).
Waterman teaches a coupler as described above. However, Waterman does not teach coupling a third portion of the signal to the isolated port (e.g. Port 4) through the second line (e.g. the second line for Claim 18 is the lower left 50 ohm portion in Fig. 2 of Waterman).
Wild provides the general teaching that an isolated port of a coupler/divider is for minimizing and absorbing reflections (e.g. see [0099]).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the Waterman isolated port to be for absorbing reflections (i.e. a third portion of the signal) such as taught by Wild, especially since a perfect circuit where there is no reflected power is impossible and thus the isolated port absorbing any reflected power occurring would be a mere optimization to maximize the device signaling performance.
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