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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 11-13, 18-19, 21-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nies et al (US 2019/0103228).
Regarding claim 1, Nies discloses a multilayer ceramic radiofrequency mixer system (Fig. 2A-4C) comprising: a first termination (Fig. 3A, 54), a second termination (Fig. 3A, 56), a third termination (Fig. 3A, 38), and a fourth termination (Fig. 3A, 42); a plurality of interleaved electrodes (Fig. 3B, 46/50/36/40) comprising: a first set of electrodes (Fig. 3B, 46) connected with the first termination ([0077]), a second set of electrodes (Fig. 3B, 50) connected with the second termination ([0077]), a third set of electrodes (Fig. 3B, 36) connected with the third termination (Fig. 3B), and a fourth set of electrodes (Fig. 3B, 40) connected with the fourth termination (Fig. 3B); wherein each electrode of the third set of electrodes is arranged co-planar with a respective electrode of the fourth set of electrodes (Fig. 3B); and a plurality of dielectric layers (Fig. 3B, 44) disposed between respective electrodes of the pluralities of interleaved electrodes (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 6, Nies further discloses that the multilayer ceramic radiofrequency mixer comprises a first side surface and a second side surface (Fig. 7D, side 16 and 18) that is parallel with the first side surface and opposite to the first side surface (Fig. 7D), and wherein the first termination is disposed on the first side surface and the second termination is disposed on the second side surface (Fig. 7D).
Regarding claim 7, Nies further discloses that the multilayer ceramic radiofrequency mixer comprises a third side surface (Fig. 7D, side with 30) that is perpendicular with the first side surface (Fig. 7D), the multilayer ceramic radiofrequency mixer comprising a fourth side surface (Fig. 7D, side with 32) that is parallel with the third side surface and opposite to the third side surface (Fig. 7D), and wherein the third termination is disposed on the third side surface and the fourth termination is disposed on the fourth side surface (Fig. 7D).
Regarding claim 8, Nies further discloses that the first set of electrodes comprises a pair of electrodes (Fig. 3C, multiple 46s), and wherein at least one electrode from the second set of electrodes and at least one electrode from the third set of electrodes or the fourth set of electrodes arranged between the pair of electrodes of the first set of electrodes (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 9, Nies further discloses that the first set of electrodes comprises a pair of electrodes (Fig. 3C, multiple 46s), and wherein at least on electrode from the second set of electrodes (Fig. 3C), at least one electrode from the third set of electrodes (Fig. 3C), and at least one electrode from the fourth set of electrodes is arranged between the pair of electrodes of the first set of electrodes (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 11, Nies further discloses that a ratio of a number of electrodes from the first set of electrodes to a number of electrodes from the third set of electrodes is greater than 1 (Fig. 3A, when electrode 48 is considered the 1st electrode and 36 is considered the 3rd).
Regarding claim 12, Nies further discloses that a ratio of a number of electrodes from the first set of electrodes to a number of electrodes from the third set of electrodes is less than 1 (Fig. 3A, when electrode 48 is considered the 3rd electrode and 36 is considered the 1st).
Regarding claim 13, Nies discloses a radiofrequency mixer system (Fig. 2A-4C) comprising: a multilayer ceramic component (Fig. 3A, all) comprising: a first termination (Fig. 3A, 54), a second termination (Fig. 3A, 56), a third termination (Fig. 3A, 38), and a fourth termination (Fig. 3A, 42); a plurality of interleaved electrodes (Fig. 3B, 46/50/36/40) comprising: a first set of electrodes (Fig. 3B, 46) connected with the first termination ([0077]), a second set of electrodes (Fig. 3B, 50) connected with the second termination ([0077]), a third set of electrodes (Fig. 3B, 36) connected with the third termination (Fig. 3B), and a fourth set of electrodes (Fig. 3B, 40) connected with the fourth termination (Fig. 3B); wherein each electrode of the third set of electrodes is arranged co-planar with a respective electrode of the fourth set of electrodes (Fig. 3B); and a plurality of dielectric layers (Fig. 3B, 44) disposed between respective electrodes of the pluralities of interleaved electrodes (Fig. 3B); a first signal source (Fig. 3D, Dc Bias -) configured to apply a first signal to the first termination with respect to the second termination of the multilayer ceramic component (Fig. 3D); and a second signal source (Fig. 3D, input) configured to apply a second signal to the third termination of the multilayer ceramic component (Fig. 3D), wherein the multilayer ceramic component is configured to output a mixed signal at the fourth termination based on the first signal and the second signal (Fig. 3D, output signal would be based on both input and bias).
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “wherein the multilayer ceramic component is configured to output a mixed signal at the fourth termination based on the first signal and the second signal” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Nies who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Nies further discloses that the first set of electrodes comprises a pair of electrodes (Fig. 3C, multiple 46s), and wherein at least one electrode from the second set of electrodes and at least one electrode from the third set of electrodes or the fourth set of electrodes arranged between the pair of electrodes of the first set of electrodes (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 19, Nies further discloses that the first set of electrodes comprises a pair of electrodes (Fig. 3C, multiple 46s), and wherein at least on electrode from the second set of electrodes (Fig. 3C), at least one electrode from the third set of electrodes (Fig. 3C), and at least one electrode from the fourth set of electrodes is arranged between the pair of electrodes of the first set of electrodes (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 21, Nies further discloses that a ratio of a number of electrodes from the first set of electrodes to a number of electrodes from the third set of electrodes is greater than 1 (Fig. 3A, when electrode 48 is considered the 1st electrode and 36 is considered the 3rd).
Regarding claim 22, Nies further discloses that a ratio of a number of electrodes from the first set of electrodes to a number of electrodes from the third set of electrodes is less than 1 (Fig. 3A, when electrode 48 is considered the 3rd electrode and 36 is considered the 1st).
Regarding claim 24, Nies further discloses that the first signal source configured to apply the first signal to the first termination (Fig. 3D), and wherein the second termination of the multilayer ceramic component is grounded (Fig. 3D, output signal is connected to a ground so it would be indirectly grounded).
Claim(s) 1-3, 13, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK et al (US 2015/0131194).
Regarding claim 1, PARK discloses a multilayer ceramic radiofrequency mixer system (Fig. 1-4) comprising: a first termination (Fig. 1, 131), a second termination (Fig. 1, 134), a third termination (Fig. 1, 133), and a fourth termination (Fig. 1, 132); a plurality of interleaved electrodes (Fig. 2-3, 121/122/123/123’) comprising: a first set of electrodes (Fig. 2, 121) connected with the first termination (Fig. 4), a second set of electrodes (Fig. 2, 122) connected with the second termination (Fig. 4, 134), a third set of electrodes (Fig. 3, 123) connected with the third termination (Fig. 4), and a fourth set of electrodes (Fig., 132’) connected with the fourth termination (Fig. 4); wherein each electrode of the third set of electrodes is arranged co-planar with a respective electrode of the fourth set of electrodes (Fig. 3); and a plurality of dielectric layers (Fig. 2-3, 111) disposed between respective electrodes of the pluralities of interleaved electrodes (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, PARK further discloses that a dielectric constant of the plurality of dielectric layers varies less than 10% in response to a DC bias voltage applied to the plurality of interleaved electrodes (known trait of barium titanate [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, PARK further discloses that the plurality of dielectric layers is free of a tunable dielectric material (known trait of barium titanate [0066]).
Regarding claim 13, PARK discloses a radiofrequency mixer system (Fig. 1-4) comprising: a multilayer ceramic component (Fig. 1, 100) comprising: a first termination (Fig. 1, 131), a second termination (Fig. 1, 134), a third termination (Fig. 1, 133), and a fourth termination (Fig. 1, 132); a plurality of interleaved electrodes (Fig. 2-3, 121/122/123/123’) comprising: a first set of electrodes (Fig. 2, 121) connected with the first termination (Fig. 4), a second set of electrodes (Fig. 2, 122) connected with the second termination (Fig. 4), a third set of electrodes (Fig. 3, 123) connected with the third termination (Fig. 4), and a fourth set of electrodes (Fig. 3, 123’) connected with the fourth termination (Fig. 4), wherein each electrode of the third set of electrodes is arranged co-planar with a respective electrode of the fourth set of electrodes (Fig. 3); and a plurality of dielectric layers (Fig. 2-3, 111) disposed between respective electrodes of the pluralities of interleaved electrodes (Fig. 2-3); a first signal source (Fig. 4, 131) configured to apply a first signal to the first termination with respect to the second termination of the multilayer ceramic component (Fig. 4); and a second signal source (Fig. 4, 133) configured to apply a second signal to the third termination of the multilayer ceramic component (Fig. 4), wherein the multilayer ceramic component is configured to output a mixed signal at the fourth termination based on the first signal and the second signal (Fig. 4, the prior art would be capable of this feature).
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “wherein the multilayer ceramic component is configured to output a mixed signal at the fourth termination based on the first signal and the second signal” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of PARK who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 25, PARK further discloses that the plurality of dielectric layers is free of a tunable dielectric material (known trait of barium titanate [0066]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies et al (US 2019/0103228) in view of Mori et al (US 2002/0030573).
Regarding claim 4, Nies fails to teach the claim limitations.
However, Mori teaches that the plurality of dielectric layers comprises a dielectric material that exhibits a dielectric constant of about 10 or less as determined at a frequency of 1 MHz in accordance with IEC 60250 ([0058] and Table 2, dielectric constant of about 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Mori to the invention of Nies, in order to increase the high frequency characteristics of the capacitor (Mori [0011]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies et al (US 2019/0103228) in view of Wilson (US 8076257).
Regarding claim 5, Nies fails to teach the claim limitations.
However, Wilson teaches that the plurality of dielectric layers comprises a dielectric material that exhibits a dielectric loss tangent of about 0.1 or less as determined at a frequency of 1 MHz in accordance with IEC 60250 (Table 3, Exp 7-800 at 200C has a tan loss of 0.09%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wilson to the invention of Nies, in order to increase the high temperature characteristics of the capacitor (Wilson [Col 1, lines 23-30]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies et al (US 2019/0103228) in view of Asamura et al (US 2005/0017811).
Regarding claim 23, Nies fails to teach the claim limitations.
However, Asamura teaches that at least one of the first signal source or the second signal source comprises a local oscillator ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Asamura to the invention of Nies, as local oscillators are well known and easy to use source generators (Asamura [0004]).
Additional Relevant Prior Art:
Lee et al (US 2008/0158773) teaches relevant art in Fig. 3B-11.
LEE et al (US 2009/0059469) teaches relevant art in Fig. 2-4.
PARK et al (US 2013/0155574) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-3.
PARK et al (US 2014/0311787) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-5.
PARK et al (US 2015/0116892) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MCFADDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5649. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 8am-9pm PST.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/MICHAEL P MCFADDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848