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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14, line 2, the limitations “a first switchable matching circuit coupled to an input of the first filter circuit” are redundant because they are already included in claim 1, last line. Therefore, the redundant limitation should be removed from the claim.
Claims 15-17 are objected to for being dependent on an objected claim. 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 14-17 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.
Claim 14, line 2, “a first switchable matching circuit” and “an input of the first filter circuit” each is vague and indefinite as there is a respective antecedent basis recited in claim 1, last line.
Claims 15-17 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/805,380 in view of Takagi et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20090267842 A.
As per claim 1 of the instant application, claim 2 of the copending application teaches every feature recited in the claim (1) but it simply fails to teach a first switchable matching circuit coupled to the first filter circuit. Takagi et al teaches first switchable matching circuit (fig. 10, 21A/B) coupled to a first tuner (13 A) (the first turner requires a filter and therefore is inherently provided). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the matching circuit as switchable in order to obtain high antenna performance as taught by Takagi et al para. [0085] line 4). Claim 1 of the instant application differs also from claim 2 of the copending application by the fact that claim 1 of the instant application is directed to an apparatus while claim 2 of the copending application is directed to a method. It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the method claim as an apparatus as would have provided more flexibility to an end user for a better experience.
As per claim 2 of the instant application, claim 2 of the copending application teaches every feature recited in the claim (2) it simply fails to teach a second switchable matching circuit coupled to the second filter circuit. Takagi et al teaches second switchable matching circuit (fig. 10, 21C/D) coupled to a first tuner (13 B) (the second turner (13B) requires a filter and therefore is inherently provided). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the matching circuit as switchable and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided in claim 1 above.
As per claim 12 of the instant application, claim 2 of the copending application teaches every limitation recited in claim 12. The claim is similarly rejected as claim 2 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomsen et al, US Patent No. 6,249,687.
As per claim 18,Thomsen et al discloses circuitry (fig. 2 and fig. 4) comprising: a first impedance matching circuit (45) configured to receive a radio-frequency signal (see input 85 and col. 2, lines 19-35 that teaches that the signals are received at GSM frequencies that are defined as RF frequencies) ; a second impedance matching circuit (50) configured to receive the radio-frequency signal see input 90 and col. 2, lines 19-35 that teaches that the signals are received at GSM frequencies that are defined as RF frequencies); and a summing node (combiner) (note where the outputs of both 45 and 50 meet) having a first input coupled to the first impedance matching circuit and having a second input coupled to the second impedance matching circuit (note fig. 4), wherein: the first input of the combiner is configured to receive a first signal associated with a first frequency band; and the second input of the combiner is configured to receive a second signal associated with a second frequency band different than the first frequency band ( note fig. 8 that shows the signal in each path comprises different frequency bands and col. 2, lines 19-35.)
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) 1-2, 5, 7, 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousu et al US Patent Application Publication No. US 20130244722 A1 in view of Takagi et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20090267842 A1.
As per claim 1, Rousu et al discloses a method and apparatus (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and Fig. 11) comprising a first filter circuit (207) configured to output signals in a first frequency range (Fig. 1); a second filter circuit (209) configured to output signals in a second frequency range different than the first frequency range (Fig. 1); a signal combiner (216) having a first input coupled to the first filter circuit (207) and having a second input coupled to the second filter circuit (209); and a matching circuit coupled to an input of the first filter circuit (note 54 and para. [0052], reciting the additional limitations of “matching circuits”). However, it fails to teach that the matching circuits are switchable matching circuits. Takagi et al teaches the implementation of a match circuit as switchable matching circuit (note fig. 10 and para. [0093], lines 9-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the match circuit as a switchable match circuit in order to obtain high antenna performance as taught by Takagi et al para. [0085] line 4).
As per claim 2, in para. [0052], Rousu et al teaches that a plurality of “matching circuits” are used. It does not however teach the matching circuits are switchable matching circuits. Takagi et al teaches the implementation of a match filter as switchable matching circuit (note fig. 10 and para. [0093], lines 9-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the match circuit as a switchable match circuit and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 5, Takagi et al teaches the first and second matching circuits are configured to provide a plurality of different impedances (see at least para. [0058](high and low impedances)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modify the first and second switchable matching circuits to provide a plurality of different impedances and the motivation would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 7, Rousu et al further teaches use of only one RF amplifier (118) coupled to the output of the combiner (216).
As per claim 8, Rousu et al further teaches a radio-frequency amplifier (218) coupled to an output of the signal combiner(216); and a receiver (222) coupled to an output of the radio-frequency amplifier (218) .
As per claim 18, see rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousu et al US Patent Application Publication No. US 20130244722 A1 in view of Takagi et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20090267842 A1 further in view of Desclos US Patent application publication No. US20150155624 A1.
As per claim 11, as applied to claim 1 above, Rousu et al and Takagi et al teaches every limitation recited in the claim but does not explicitly teach that the filters are active filters. Desclos teaches the additional limitations of implementing a first and second filters as active filters (see fig. 2, 22a and 22b). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have implemented the filters of Rousu et al as active filters in order to optimize isolation between antenna and filters (Desclos para. [0014, last four lines).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousu et al US Patent Application Publication No. US 20130244722 A1 in view of Takagi et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20090267842 A1 further in view of Madadi et al US Patent application publication No. US20170170810 A1.
As per claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, Rousu et al and Takagi et al teaches every limitation recited in the claim but does not explicitly teach use of a Lowpass to bandpass conversion filters in each of the first and second filters. Madadi et al teaches the implementation of N-path filters as Lowpass to bandpass conversion filters see para. [0004], lines 18-22. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the first filter and the second filter as a lowpass to bandpass conversion filter, respectively, as such filters provide good selectivity(para.` [0004]).
As per claim 19, see rejection of claim 12.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousu et al US Patent Application Publication No. US 20130244722 A1 in view of Takagi et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20090267842 A1 further in view of Aggarwal et al US Patent application publication No. US20130335163 A1.
As per claim 13, as applied to claim 1 above, Rousu et al and Takagi et al teaches every limitation recited in the claim but does not explicitly teach that the first filter circuit comprises a first N-path filter, wherein the second filter circuit comprises a second N-path filter, and wherein N is an integer greater than two. Aggarwal et al teaches (fig. 4 and fig. 2) the first filter circuit (202) comprises a first N-path filter (fig. 2), and the second filter circuit (212) comprises a second N-path filter (fig. 2), and wherein N is an integer greater than two (fig. 2, N is 4 which is greater than 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to configure each of the filters of Rousu to be a N-path filter, where N is greater than 2 in order to achieve a higher out of band rejection (Aggarwal et al, para. [0031], last two lines.)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousu et al US Patent Application Publication No. US 20130244722 A1 in view of Takagi et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20090267842 A1 further in view of Desclos US Patent application publication No. US20150155624 A1.
As per claim 20, Rousu et al discloses a method and apparatus (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and Fig. 11) comprising a first filter circuit (207) configured to output signals in a first frequency range (Fig. 1); a second filter circuit (209) configured to output signals in a second frequency range different than the first frequency range (Fig. 1) ; a signal combiner (216) having a first input coupled to the first filter circuit (207) and having a second input coupled to the second filter circuit (209); and a matching circuit coupled to an input of the first filter circuit (note 54 and para. [0052], reciting the additional limitations of “matching circuits” (by definition, a plurality of “matching circuits” includes at least a first matching circuit and a second matching circuit). However, it fails to teach that the matching circuits are switchable matching circuits. Takagi et al teaches the implementation of a match filter as switchable matching circuit (note fig. 10 and para. [0093], lines 9-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to implement the match circuits as switchable match circuits in order to obtain high antenna performance as taught by Takagi et al para. [0085] line 4). Rousu et al also fail to teach the first and second filters are active filters. Desclos teaches the additional limitations of implementing a first and second filters as active filters (see fig. 2, 22a and 22b). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have implemented the filters of Rousu et al as active filters in order to optimize isolation between antenna and filters (Desclos para. [0014, last four lines).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 9 and 10 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.
Claims 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 JEAN B CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-3020. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-3:00PM Monday-Thursday.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/JEAN B CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights