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 1, in paragraph [0004], note that respective publication dates should be provided for the corresponding patent literature citations for clarity and completeness of description. Page 2, in paragraph [0005], first line therein, note that the recitation of “even if may be” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed; 4th line therein, note that --alter-- should be inserted after “therefore” for an appropriate characterization. At all occurrences throughout the specification, note that the respective recitation of “a bulk of …” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 4, the heading immediately preceding in paragraph [0015], note that --the-- should be inserted after “of” for an appropriate characterization. Page 4, in paragraph [0015], note that the label “1” is inappropriate for the brief description of the drawing and thus should be deleted.
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 1, 3, 4, 6; 2, 5, 7-9 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 claim 1, lines 8, 9 and in claim 2, line 10, note that the respective recitation of “a bulk of …” is vague in meaning, at these instances and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 5, note that it is unclear whether the specified materials of “the core of the first inductor” would be consistent with the “molding powder …with carbon binder”, as recited in independent claim 2, from which this claim directly depends. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 6, 9, note that it is unclear whether the specified materials of “the core of the second inductor” would be consistent with the “bulk of high permeability material”, as recited in independent claims 1, 2, from which these claims correspondingly depend. Appropriate clarification is needed.
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 1; 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Pan et al.
Pan et al (i.e. Figure 2) discloses a biasing circuit (i.e. bias-T circuit 200), comprising: a signal input terminal (i.e. RF input (RFIN) 102); an output terminal (i.e. RF output (RFOUT) 110); a node (i.e. point A) between the input and output terminals (102, 110); a first inductor (i.e. L1) including a core (i.e. a ferrite bead which constitutes a bulk material) connected at one end thereof to node (A); a second inductor (i.e. L2) including a core (i.e. another ferrite bead constituting a bulk material) connected at one end thereof to the other end of the first inductor (L1) at another node (i.e. not labeled/specified, but evident from Figure 2). As is known in the art, note that ferrite is a magnetic material that has a high magnetic permeability (i.e. typically 1000 and higher). Regarding claim 2, for the inductors recited therein, note that since the specific materials are “formed” by specific process steps (e.g. molding powder, etc.), such process steps are typically not given any patentable weight in assessing and determining the patentability of a product or apparatus claim. Accordingly, for the first inductor, the presence of a core is sufficient to determining the patentability of claim 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to BENNY T LEE at telephone number (571)272-1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights