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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pozdeev (US Patent 6636126) in view of Knopik et al. (US PGPub 20190245258), both references of record.
As per claim 1:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
A coupler (four port hybrid 100A) comprising:
a first assembly having:
an input unit element (isolated transposition portion 40), an intermediate unit element (isolated transposition portion 50), and an output unit element (isolated transposition element 30), where each unit element includes:
a first coil and a second coil (electrical conductors 32/34 or 42/44 or 52/54) arranged to generally have a cross over shape (as seen in Fig. 1);
a first input terminal corresponding to an input node of the first coil;
a second input terminal corresponding to an output node of the second coil;
a first output terminal corresponding to an output node of the first coil; and
a second output terminal corresponding to an input node of the second coil (each isolated transposition portion comprises two input terminals and two output terminals, wherein the respective nodes may be labeled as desired);
wherein:
the first input terminal of the intermediate unit element is coupled to the first output terminal of the input unit element, the second input terminal of the intermediate unit element is coupled to the second output terminal of the input unit element, the first output terminal of the intermediate unit element is coupled to the first input terminal of the output unit element, and the second output terminal of the intermediate unit element is coupled to the second input terminal of the output unit element (each first input and output terminal may be designated to be connected along the path between either Port P2 to Port P1 or port P3 to port P4, with the second input and output terminals being connected along the path of the other set of ports), and
wherein the input unit element is spatially positioned between the intermediate unit element and the output unit element (as seen in Fig. 1).
Pozdeev does not disclose:
where each unit element includes:
a first coil and a second coil arranged to generally have an “H” shape.
Knopik et al. discloses in Figs. 4-5 & 7-8:
A cross-over coupling stage of a hybrid coupler comprising a first coil (metal track PM11) and a second coil (metal track PM12) arranged to generally have an “H” shape.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cross-over coupling stages of Knopik et al. for the isolated transposition elements as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent cross-over/transposition circuit that further provides the benefit of providing a desired level of capacitive and inductive values as taught by Knopik et al. ([0062])
As per claim 2:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the first input terminal of the input unit element is a first input of the first assembly, and the second input terminal of the input unit element is a second input of the first assembly (the first and second input terminals of the input unit element are part of the input terminals of the assembly by being connected to ports P2 & P3, wherein the hybrid of Pozdeev is a reciprocal element with terminals able to function as both input and output terminals).
As per claim 3:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the first output terminal of the output unit element is a first output of the first assembly, and the second output terminal of the output unit element is a second output of the first assembly (the first and second output terminals of the output unit element are part of the input terminals of the assembly by being connected to ports P1 & P4, wherein the hybrid of Pozdeev is a reciprocal element with terminals able to function as both input and output terminals).
As per claim 4:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the first input of the first assembly is configured to receive a first signal, and the second input of the first assembly is configured to receive a second signal that is a phase-shifted version of the first signal (being a four-port hybrid coupler, ports P2 & P3 are configured to be able to receive said first and second signals, as both ports are electrical ports for an electrical circuit; further, applying a phase shift to the second signal is an intended use, and is not a claimed difference in the structure of the circuit, such that a phase-shifted version of the first signal may be applied to the second input without conflicting with the limitations of the claims).
As per claim 5:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the second signal is the first signal as phase-shifted by ninety degrees (being a four-port hybrid coupler, ports P2 & P3 are configured to be able to receive said first and second signals, wherein the second signal is phase-shifted by ninety degrees, as both ports are electrical ports for an electrical circuit; further, applying a phase shift to the second signal is an intended use and does not further limit the claimed coupler).
As per claim 6:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the second signal is the first signal as phase-shifted by ninety degrees (being a four-port hybrid coupler, ports P2 & P3 are configured to be able to receive said first and second signals, wherein the second signal is phase-shifted by ninety degrees, as both ports are electrical ports for an electrical circuit; further, applying a phase shift to the second signal is an intended use and does not further limit the claimed coupler).
As per claim 7:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the first input terminal of the input unit element is a first input of the first assembly, and the second input terminal of the input unit element is a second input of the first assembly (the first and second input terminals of the input unit element are part of the input terminals of the assembly by being connected to ports P2 & P3, wherein the hybrid of Pozdeev is a reciprocal element with terminals able to function as both input and output terminals),
Pozdeev does not disclose:
the coupler includes at least one second assembly identical to the first assembly, the first output of the first assembly is coupled to a first input of the second assembly, and the second output of the first assembly is coupled to a second input of the second assembly
Knopik et al. discloses in Figs. 6 & 9-10, the coupling in series of multiple modules to obtain desired capacitive and inductive values ([0062]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the coupler to comprise at least one second assembly identical to the first assembly, the first output of the first assembly is coupled to a first input of the second assembly, and the second output of the first assembly is coupled to a second input of the second assembly to provide the benefit of obtaining desired capacitive and inductive values as taught by Knopik et al. ([0062])
As per claim 8:
Pozdeev does not disclose:
the unit elements all have the same dimensions.
Knopik et al. discloses in Figs. 4-5 & 7-8:
A cross-over coupling stage of a hybrid coupler comprising a first coil (metal track PM11) and a second coil (metal track PM12) arranged to generally have an “H” shape, wherein the size and shape of the coupling stage is controlled as a design parameter for determining the inductive and capacitive values of the coupling stage ([0025-0026]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the unit elements to all have the same dimensions as the dimensions are design parameters that provide the benefit of determining the inductive and capacitive values of the coupling stage as taught by Knopik et al. ([0025-0026]) and further as one of a limited number of options for the comparative dimensions of the cross-over coupling stages (same or different).
As per claim 9:
Pozdeev does not disclose:
the unit elements have different dimensions.
Knopik et al. discloses in Figs. 4-5 & 7-8:
A cross-over coupling stage of a hybrid coupler comprising a first coil (metal track PM11) and a second coil (metal track PM12) arranged to generally have an “H” shape, wherein the size and shape of the coupling stage is controlled as a design parameter for determining the inductive and capacitive values of the coupling stage ([0025-0026]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the unit elements to all have different dimensions as the dimensions are design parameters that provide the benefit of determining the inductive and capacitive values of the coupling stage as taught by Knopik et al. ([0025-0026]) and further as one of a limited number of options for the comparative dimensions of the cross-over coupling stages (same or different).
As per claim 10:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the unit elements are all placed in a same plane (as seen in related Fig. 5).
As per claim 11:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the unit elements are all placed in different planes (as seen in related Fig. 5, wherein the unit elements are placed in different planes oriented in the horizontal direction and the direction normal to the plane of the figure).
As per claim 12:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 6:
The respective transmission lines and cross-over units may be placed on separate layers vertically to form a step arrangement of the cross-over units (30 & 40).
Pozdeev does not disclose in Figs. 1-2:
the unit elements are placed in a stepped arrangement.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the coupler of the combination on separate layers vertically as a possible configuration as shown by Pozdeev to provide the benefit of alternative layouts able with different geometries.
As a consequence of the configuration, the unit elements are placed in a stepped arrangement.
As per claim 13:
Pozdeev does not disclose in Figs. 1-2:
the first and second coils of the unit elements are windings having a generally rectangular shape.
Knopik et al. discloses in Figs. 4-5 & 7-8:
the first and second coils of the unit elements are windings having a generally rectangular shape (as seen in Figs. 4-5).
As a consequence of the combination, the first and second coils of the unit elements are windings having a generally rectangular shape.
As per claim 14:
Pozdeev does not disclose in Figs. 1-2:
the first and second coils of the unit elements are windings having a generally zigzag shape.
Knopik et al. discloses in Figs. 4-5 & 7-8:
the first and second coils of the unit elements are windings having a generally zigzag shape.
As a consequence of the combination, the first and second coils of the unit elements are windings having a generally zigzag shape.
As per claim 15:
Pozdeev discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the coupler is a reversible coupler (only comprises passive, non-directional elements).
As per claim 16:
Pozdeev does not disclose in Figs. 1-2:
the first coil and the second coil each include: a plurality of arms; and a bridge between the plurality of arms.
Knopik et al. discloses in Figs. 4-5 & 7-8:
the first coil and the second coil each include:
a plurality of arms (the region from BM11 to BM12 & the region from BM21 to BM22); and
a bridge (area between arms in crossing region RC) between the plurality of arms.
As a consequence of the combination, the first coil and the second coil each include: a plurality of arms; and a bridge between the plurality of arms.
As per claim 17:
Pozdeev does not disclose in Figs. 1-2:
the bridge is perpendicular to the plurality of arms, and the bridge centered relative to the plurality of arms, and the plurality of arms each have a length that is greater than a width of the bridge.
Knopik et al. discloses in Figs. 4-5 & 7-8:
the bridge is perpendicular to the plurality of arms, and the bridge centered relative to the plurality of arms (centered on axis of symmetry ASM2), and the plurality of arms each have a length that is greater than a width of the bridge (each arm extends passed the bridge).
As a consequence of the combination, the bridge is perpendicular to the plurality of arms, and the bridge centered relative to the plurality of arms, and the plurality of arms each have a length that is greater than a width of the bridge.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 8 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that:
Applicant respectfully submits that Pozdeev's transposition portions are not coupling stages each with first and second coils. Combining Pozdeev with Knopk would fundamentally alter Pozdeev's operation. Accordingly, one of skill in the art would not combine Pozdeev and Knopk. The combination of Pozdeev and Knopk would result in the coupler of claim 1. For at least this reason, claim 1 is allowable over the cited references. Depending claims 2-17 are allowable for at least the reason that they depend from allowable claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant merely asserts that the operation of Pozdeev would be fundamentally altered with the combination of Knopk without further elaboration. The applicant does not explain how the operation of Pozdeev would be changed or rendered inoperable by the combination. The applicant further asserts that the transposition portions of Pozdeev are not coupling stages each with first and second coils, but Pozdeev discloses Fig. 1 as a coupler (col. 1 lines 16-29), wherein the transpositions are stages of the coupler of Fig. 1, and each transposition comprises a first and second coil (four port cross connectors as seen in Fig. 1 and col. 3 lines 39-67). The examiner notes that Pozdeev discloses coupled coils (abstract) with transpositions (34), and that Knopk discloses transpositions of coupled coils. The use of Knopk within Pozdeev would not decouple the coils, as Knopk’s transpositions are coupling stages ([0052]), wherein multiple coupling stages may be combined (as seen in Fig. 6). Knopk further discloses in Figs. 7-9 that the transposition stages may be combined with additional coupled transmission line portions (modules MOD2). Applicant’s argument regarding the fundamental operation of Pozdeev being argued is not supported by evidence, and is therefore not persuasive. Furthermore, applicant’s argument that Pozdeev discloses transpositions that are not coupling stages is further not supported by evidence that coupling does not occur at transpositions. As Knopk discloses coupling with transposed conductors, the evidence indicates that coupling occurs at the transpositions of Pozdeev due to the nature of current-carrying conductors being in proximity to each other. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive, and the rejections of claims 1-17 are sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights