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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a direct connection from the antenna to the second terminal) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). The claims require a coupling, which by broadest reasonable interpretation may be established as a connection between elements. In this case, Mishra et al. (US 2021/0105047 A1), hereinafter Mishra, discloses, in figure 1A, the antenna 135 coupled to the second terminal 103 via the capacitor C2, which establishes the electrical path. Further, a coupling may also be established across the secondary winding S of the transformer T, thus coupling the antenna 135 to the terminal 103. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments that the proposed combination would render Mishra unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and change the principle of operation, this is not persuasive. A differential antenna may be incorporated in order to operate with differential signals, a known alternative to single-ended antennas. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The antenna switching network of Mishra may remain operable by switching between a differential antenna and the secondary antenna 140 of FIG. 1A. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s arguments that the motivation does not apply to Mishra’s technical problem, this is not persuasive. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the incorporation of the differential antenna and transceiver configuration of Mesquita et al. (US 2023/0073267 A1) Applicant further argues architecturally incompatible structures between Mishra and Mesquita. However, as stated above, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claims 3-5, in response to applicant’s argument that Mayes et al. (US 6,337,664 B1), hereinafter Mayes, is not configured for integration with a transformer-based switch network or a differential drive architecture, this is not persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Mayes utilizes the conical resonant radiators to suggest the coverage of a wide range of frequencies by utilizing differing bands for differing communication services (Mayes, Col. 4, Lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 13, in response to applicant’s argument that the combination of Mesquita, Visser (US 2018/0278240 A1) and Callender et al. (US 11,218,183 B2), hereinafter Callender, would change the principle of operation of Mesquita, this is not persuasive. Mesquita is directed to isolation within the antenna system and the combination of Visser and Callender disclose active switching within the antenna system to achieve isolation between lines (Visser, Para [0042]; Callender, Col. 8, Lines 52-57). The combination still suggests the fundamental operating principle, managing interaction between signal paths in an antenna system.
Further, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Visser and Callender disclose further isolation techniques (see FIG. 4B & 7 of Visser, switches T1, T2 isolating portions of the antenna system; see FIG. 5 of Callender, switches 504, 512 isolating portions of the antenna system) that may be utilized for enhanced isolation within the antenna system of Mesquita, that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, the combination of Mesquita, Visser, and Callender disclose the antenna system, as required by the invention as claimed.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US 2021/0105047 A1), hereinafter Mishra, in view of Mesquita et al. (US 2023/0073267 A1), hereinafter Mesquita.
Regarding claim 1, Mishra discloses, in figure 1A, an antenna system comprising:
a first transformer (Para [0027], “transformer T”), comprising:
a primary winding (P), comprising a first terminal and a second terminal (Para [0027], “first terminal and second terminal for primary winding P”); and
a secondary winding (S), comprising a first terminal and a second terminal (Para [0028], “secondary winding S for transformer T includes a first terminal 102…a second terminal 103”);
a first switch coupled between the first terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer and a ground (transistor switch M1 coupled between the first terminal 102 of the secondary winding of the transformer and ground);
a second switch coupled between the second terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer and the ground (transistor switch M2 coupled between the second terminal 103 of the secondary winding and ground); and
an antenna coupled to the first terminal and the second terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer (antenna 135 coupled to the first terminal 102 and the second terminal 103 via C3), but fails to disclose a first transceiver coupled to the first terminal of the primary winding of the first transformer; and
wherein the antenna is a differential antenna.
However, Mesquita discloses, in figure 1b, a first transceiver coupled to the first terminal of the primary winding of the first transformer (Para [0073], “FIG. 1 shows a slightly different example antenna interface arrangement for cancellation of a transmit signal at a receiver port of a transceiver when connected to a differential port transmitter (TX) 101, a differential port receiver (RX) 104, and a differential port antenna (ANT) 103 of a transceiver”); and
wherein the antenna is a differential antenna (Para [0073], “differential port antenna 103”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the transceiver and differential antenna of Mesquita in the antenna system of Mishra, to achieve the benefit of mitigating signal leakage from transmitter to receiver when implemented in a low-power system (Mesquita, Para [0035] & [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Mishra in view of Mesquita disclose the antenna system of claim 1, and Mishra continues to disclose, in figure 1A, a first capacitor coupled between the first terminal and the second terminal of the primary winding of the first transformer (capacitor C1 coupled between the first terminal and second terminal of the primary winding P of the transformer T); and
a second capacitor coupled between the first terminal and the second terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer (capacitor C2 coupled between the first terminal 102 and the second terminal 103 of the secondary winding S of the transformer T).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra in view of Mesquita as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Mayes et al. (US 6,337,664 B1), hereinafter Mayes.
Regarding claim 3, Mishra in view of Mesquita disclose the antenna system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the antenna comprises a first radiator and a second radiator, and the first radiator and the second radiator form a symmetrical configuration.
However, Mayes discloses, in figure 5A & 6, wherein the antenna comprises a first radiator and a second radiator, and the first radiator and the second radiator form a symmetrical configuration (Col. 7, Lines 25-51, “FIGS. 5A and 5B show more completely an antenna system…sets of conical resonant radiators”…forming a symmetrical configuration, see figure 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the radiators of Mayes in the antenna of Mishra and Mesquita, to achieve the benefit of covering a wide range of frequency by utilizing differing bands for differing communication services (Mayes, Col. 4, Lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mishra, Mesquita, and Mayes discloses the antenna system of claim 3, and Mayes continues to disclose, in figure 6, wherein the first terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer is coupled to the first radiator (Col. 8, Lines 7-9, “Each conical resonant radiator is represented by one of the sections of transmission line 60a...60f”…first terminal of secondary winding of transformer 71 is coupled to the first radiator 60f), and the second terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer is coupled to the second radiator (second terminal of secondary winding of transformer 71 is coupled to second radiator 60b).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mishra, Mesquita, and Mayes discloses the antenna system of claim 4, and Mayes continues to disclose, in figure 6, a first impedance tuner (Col. 6, Lines 49-50, “resonant frequencies can be used to control the variation in the input impedance”) coupled between the first terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer and the first radiator (Col. 8, Lines 15-16, “lumped elements 62a...62f [and lumped element 72], that is applied to fix the frequency of resonance”…lumped element 72 is coupled between the first terminal of the secondary winding and the first radiator 60f); and
a second impedance tuner coupled between the second terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer and the second radiator (lumped element 62a acts as an impedance tuner via adjustment of the resonant frequency and is coupled between the second terminal of the secondary winding and the second radiator 60b, see figure 6).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mesquita in view of Visser (US 2018/0278240 A1) and further in view of Callender et al. (US 11,218,183 B2), hereinafter Callender.
Regarding claim 13, Mesquita discloses, in figure 1, an antenna system comprising:
a first transformer (Para [0060], “interface arrangement 100 comprises…distributed transformer”), comprising:
a primary winding (Para [0061], “primary side winding with a first part 111 and a second part 112”), comprising a first terminal and a second terminal (191 & 192);
a secondary winding (Para [0061], “second secondary side 114”), comprising a first terminal and a second terminal (195 & 196); and
a tertiary winding (Para [0061], “first secondary side winding 113”), comprising a first terminal and a second terminal (193 & 194);
a first transmitter coupled to the first terminal of the primary winding of the first transformer (transmitter 101 coupled to the first terminal 191 of the primary winding 111 & 112);
a first receiver coupled to the first terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer (receiver 104 coupled to the first terminal 195 of the secondary winding 114);
an antenna coupled to the first terminal and the second terminal of the tertiary winding of the first transformer (antenna 103 coupled to the first terminal 193 & second terminal 194 of the tertiary winding 113); and
wherein the antenna is a differential antenna (Para [0073], “differential port antenna (ANT) 103”), but fails to disclose a first switch coupled between the first terminal of the tertiary winding of the first transformer and a ground;
a second switch coupled between the second terminal of the tertiary winding of the first transformer and the ground;
a fifth switch coupled between the first terminal and the second terminal of the primary winding of the first transformer; and
a sixth switch coupled between the first terminal and the second terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer.
However, Visser discloses, in figure 4B & 7, a first switch coupled between the first terminal of the tertiary winding of the first transformer and a ground (switch T1 coupled between a first terminal of the tertiary winding 2 of the balun and a ground);
a second switch coupled between the second terminal of the tertiary winding of the first transformer and the ground (switch T2 is coupled between a second terminal of the tertiary winding 2 of the balun and the ground);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the switches of Visser in the antenna system of Mesquita, to achieve the benefit of improving the power handling capability of the antenna system by isolating the signal as necessary (Visser, Para [0042]).
In combination, Mesquita and Visser fail to disclose a fifth switch coupled between the first terminal and the second terminal of the primary winding of the first transformer; and
a sixth switch coupled between the first terminal and the second terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer.
However, Callender discloses, in figure 5, a fifth switch coupled between the first terminal and the second terminal of the primary winding of the first transformer (switch 504 coupled between the first terminal and second terminal of the primary winding of 506); and
a sixth switch coupled between the first terminal and the second terminal of the secondary winding of the first transformer (switch 512 coupled between the first terminal and second terminal of the secondary winding of 510).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the switches of Callender in the antenna system of Mesquita and Visser, to achieve the benefit of utilizing the transmit and receive modes of the transceiver without interference (Callender, Col. 8, Lines 52-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 & 14-18 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 19-21 are allowed.
Claim 19 is allowed because the prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the antenna system comprising a third switch coupled between the first terminal of the tertiary winding of the second transformer and the ground; and an antenna coupled to the first terminal and the second terminal of the tertiary winding of the first transformer, and to the first terminal and the second terminal of the tertiary winding of the second transformer.
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 TYLER J PERENY whose telephone number is (571)272-4189. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/TYLER J PERENY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights