The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 4 of the original specification, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should still be inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” for consistency with PTO guidelines. At all appropriate instances throughout the specification, note that the term “interface” should be changed to --connection point-- for consistency with like changes made throughout the claims. Page 10 of the original specification, in paragraph [0041], 4th line therein, note that --of resonant element 111-- should be inserted after “111A” and “111B”, respectively for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 10. Page 12 of the original specification, in paragraph [0045], last line therein, note that --V1-- should be inserted after “end” for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 11. In replacement paragraph [0054], 8th line therein, note that the reference to labels (OUT3, OUT4) are vague in meaning, especially since no such labels appear in FIG. 12 and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 10-13; 16-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, note that it is unclear whether the “embedded resonant unit” being “connected in series between the first connection point and the second connection point”, as respectively recited in these claims would be properly dependent from corresponding amended independent claims 1 & 8, which now require that the “embedded resonant unit” to be connected between the “connection point” and “a reference potential end”. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 12, 13, 18, note that it is unclear whether the subject matter, as recited in these claims would be deemed redundant, especially since the same subject matter (i.e. the embedded resonant element is connected between the connection point and a reference potential end) has already been incorporated into and thus recited in corresponding amended independent claims 1 & 8. Appropriate clarification is needed
Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections based on prior art, applicants’ amendments to independent claims 1 & 8 along with the presentation of new claim 21, taken in conjunction with applicant’s arguments pertaining to the prior art of record has been considered by the examiner and has been found persuasive by the examiner, such as to withdraw the rejections based on prior art.
Regarding the rejections based on indefiniteness under 35 USC 112(b), applicant’s response has been found persuasive to overcome the rejections based on indefiniteness set forth in the last Office action. However, in view of amendments to independent claims 1 & 8, such amendments now introduce inconsistencies with respect to subject matter in certain dependent claims, as set forth in the above paragraph 112(b) rejection. Accordingly, the applicant is required to address these issues in any future response.
Regarding the objections to the specification and drawings, applicant’s response overcomes the drawing objections and a majority of the specification objections. However, certain specification objections remain outstanding as set forth in the above specification objection. Accordingly, applicant is required to address these objections in any future response.
Claims4, 10-13; 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6; 8, 9, 14, 15, 19; 21 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights