DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The following change should be made for grammatical purposes: On line 5 of claim 1, insert --to-- before “terminate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,964,996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in claims 1, 2, and 8 of ‘996 substantially recite all of the limitations recited in claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 has been rejected under an “anticipatory type analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji et al. US Patent 10,498,004.
As per claims 1 and 6, Ji et al. discloses in Fig. 9 a directional coupler (e.g. directional coupler device 900) comprising:
as per claim 1, a main line (e.g. main line 211); a first sub-line (e.g. coupled line 212) having a first end (e.g. port P3) and a second end (e.g. port P4); a first termination circuit (e.g. resistance 941, reading port Pc, and ground) and a second termination circuit (e.g. resistance 942 and ground) configured to terminate the first end and the second end of the first sub-line, respectively; and a first switch (e.g. switch 931) configured to selectively connect the first sub-line and the first termination circuit (Col. 16 lines 34-49; Switch 931 selectively connects the port P3 of line 212 to the resistance 941.); and
as per claim 6, a multilayer board (related Fig. 7b, multilayer circuit board which includes main line 711) having at least the main line therein; and an IC chip (Col. 4 lines 59-61, integrated circuit (IC)) comprising the first termination circuit and the first switch (The coupler and switching circuit are formed in the same IC.).
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2017537555, as cited by the Applicant.
As per claims 1, 3, and 4, JP 2017537555 discloses in Fig. 9a a directional coupler comprising:
as per claim 1, a main line (e.g. main line 80); a first sub-line (e.g. line 85) having a first end (e.g. left end of line 85) and a second end (e.g. right end of line 85); a first termination circuit (e.g. termination circuit 109 and ground) and a second termination circuit (e.g. termination circuit 104 and ground) configured to terminate the first end and the second end of the first sub-line, respectively; and a first switch (e.g. switch 99) configured to selectively connect the first sub-line and the first termination circuit (Switch 99 selectively connects the left end of line 85 and the termination circuit 109.);
as per claim 3, wherein the first termination circuit and the second termination circuit each comprise a variable resistor, a variable capacitor, or a variable inductor (related Fig. 6a; Each of the termination circuits 109 and 104 comprises a variable resistor, variable inductor, or a variable capacitor.); and
as per claim 4, a second sub-line (e.g. line 87) that is connected in series with the first sub-line, the first sub-line and the second sub-line constituting a series circuit (The lines 85 and 87 are connected in series and form a series circuit.); a third termination circuit (e.g. termination circuit 108); and a second switch (e.g. switch 98), wherein the third termination circuit is connected to the series circuit (The circuit 108 is electrically connected to a left end of line 87 through switch 98.), and wherein the second switch is configured to selectively connect the series circuit and the third termination circuit (Switch 98 is configured to selectively connect a node of the series circuit of lines 85 and 87 and termination circuit 108.).
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 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karthaus US 2017/0324393 in view of JP 2017537555, as cited by the Applicant.
As per claims 1 and 8-10, Karthaus discloses in Fig. 4 a communication device (Paragraph 3, mobile communication system or radar system) comprising:
as per claim 8, high frequency module (e.g. RF front end 200) comprising: a directional coupler (e.g. directional coupler 101), an antenna terminal (e.g. antenna 407); a plurality of filters (e.g. filters 103 and 105); and an antenna switch (Paragraph 102; An RF switch exists at ports of the duplexer 100.) configured to selectively connect a first signal path leading to the antenna terminal and each of a plurality of second signal paths leading to the plurality of filters (The RF switch connects “a first signal path” from duplexer 100 to antenna 407 and each path from coupler 101 to filters 103 and 105 respectively.);
as per claim 9, wherein the antenna switch is integral with the directional coupler (Since the RF switch exists at the ports of the duplexer 100, both the switch and the directional coupler are a part of (i.e. “integral with”) the duplexer 100.); and
as per claim 10, a signal processing circuit (Paragraph 73, processor within duplexer 100) that is connected to the high frequency module and configured to perform signal processing on a high frequency signal (Paragraph 73; The processor allows for selection of frequency bands within the RF front end 200.).
However, Karthaus does not disclose the directional coupler being the directional coupler of claim 1. JP 2017537555 discloses in Fig. 9a a directional coupler comprising all of the limitations recited in claim 1 (See above for a detailed explanation which has not been repeated for the sake of brevity.). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced each of the generic directional couplers 101 and 107 within Karthaus with the specific directional coupler of JP2017537555 as being obvious art substitutions of equivalents. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included: as per claim 8, the directional coupler being the directional coupler of claim 1; and as per claim 9, wherein the antenna switch is integral with the first switch of the directional coupler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 7 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0961. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/RAKESH B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843