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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 6/14/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0077413 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12451582 in view of Setty (US 6917796).
As Per Claim 18:
US Patent 12451582 discloses:
Application Claim Number
US Patent 12451582 Claim Number
Application Claim Limitation
US Patent 12451582 Claim Limitation
Claim 18
Claims 1 and 6
Second sheet including a ground pattern
“second sheet comprising a first internal ground pattern”
Claim 18
Claims 1 and 6
Fourth sheet including a first coupling line
“third sheet comprising the first coupling line”
Claim 18
Claims 1 and 6
Fifth sheet including a second coupling line
“fourth sheet comprising the second coupling line“
US Patent 12451582 does not disclose:
A third sheet including a feeding line on one surface of the second sheet; and
sintering the second to fifth sheets through a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) process to form a coupler body.
Setty discloses in Figure 4:
A third sheet (“layer”, 28) including a feeding line (“circuit lines” 62 are connected through via 50) on one surface of the second sheet (which is located on one surface the second sheet, as is evident by Figure 4) on one surface of the second sheet (“layer”, 26) and
sintering the second to fifth sheets through a LTCC process to form coupler body (“Triple balanced mixer 20 has a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) structure or substrate 22”, [0034], substrate 22 contains a plurality of 9 sheets that are stacked using LTCC).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second sheet to also include a feeding line on one surface and the second to fifth sheets being sintered through a LTCC process as taught in Setty to the second to fifth sheets in claims 1 & 6 of US patent 12451582 to provide the benefit of electromagnetic coupling through the layers (e.g. see Setty, [0035]) and the LTCC layers having tightly controlled tolerances that provide for well-defined RF characteristics (e.g. see Setty, [0040]).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“Increases a capacitance component”, as per Claim 1, is not made clear by the specification how the increasing of the “capacitance component” is achieved.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, Line 4, note that “1-2st” should be rewritten as --1-2nd-- for grammatical clarity;
In Claim 7, Lines 1-4 and Claim 8, Lines 1-2, Claim 9, Line 2 and Claim 10, Line 1, the terminology defining each “line” appears to be confusing. This language should perhaps be rewritten as
“1-1st line” to -- 1st line--;
“1-2nd line” to -- 2nd line --;
“1-3rd line” to --3rd line--;
“1-4th line” to --4th line--;
Claim 20, Line 2, “pot electrodes” should read “port electrodes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2-8, 10-17 and 19-20 depend upon rejected claim 1 and inherit the deficiency thereby.
Claim 1, Line 9, “capacitance component” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what characterizes the “capacitance component” as claimed, for example, is it is a physical structure or a property of the coupling line, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 1, Line 9, “increases a capacitance component” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how the capacitance component is increased and what causes it to increase, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 18, Lines 3-6, each recitation of “on one surface of” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether it is the third/fourth/fifth sheet itself or whether it is the corresponding feeding/coupling line, being disposed on one surface of the corresponding sheet, therefore leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "1-1st spiral line" in Line 2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 101310745).
The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As per Claim 18:
Lee discloses in Figure 9:
A manufacturing method for a coupler, comprising the steps of:
(a) preparing a second sheet (lowermost “upper first green sheet”, 100_U) including a ground pattern (“ground electrode”, 120, it is inherent that the sheet was pre-prepared);
(b) stacking a third sheet (“lower second green sheet”, 200_L) including a feeding line (“port line”, 210) on one surface of the second sheet (200_L is on one surface of 100_U, as is evident by Figure 9);
(c) stacking a fourth sheet (“lower third green sheet”, 300_L) including a first coupling line (“coupling line”, 310) on one surface of the third sheet (300_L is on one surface of 200_L, as is evident by Figure 9);
(d) stacking a fifth sheet (“upper third green sheet”, 300_U) including a second coupling line (“coupling line”, 310) on one surface of the fourth sheet (300_U is on one surface of 300_L, as is evident by Figure 9, “the coupler 10 is formed by stacking upper and lower first to third green sheets”, [0044]);
and (e) sintering the second to fifth sheets through a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) process to form a coupler body (“may be formed by combining a plurality of green sheets, and may be formed by a low temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) process.”, [0023] and further that the combiner 10 may be formed using this same LTCC method ([0044]), which is inherently a sintering method, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art).
As per Claim 19:
Lee discloses in Figure 9:
The manufacturing method of claim 18, further comprising,
before step (a) (this occurs before step (a) since the metal conductor is first formed then the green sheets are stacked together, [0023]),
(f) preparing a first sheet (“upper second green sheet”, 200_U) including ground electrodes (“ground pattern”, 230) and port electrodes (“port line”, 210, which are inherently port electrodes) for external power connection on the other surface of the second sheet,
wherein step (e) is a step of sintering the first to fifth sheets to form a coupler body (through the LTCC method as defined in claim 18 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
232
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL YALDO whose telephone number is (703)756-1784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM.
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.
/ABIGAIL AMIR YALDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843