The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The substitute specification filed on 31 July 2026 has been reviewed, found acceptable and has replaced the original specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 14, in paragraph [0071], third line therein; page 16, in paragraph [0072], 17th line therein; page 22, in paragraph [0090], 6th line therein; page 23, in paragraph [0091], 5th & 6th line therein: note that “2^M-1” should be rewritten as --2M-1--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Throughout the detail description, note that for instances where a sequence of reference labels is cited, such sequence should include the individual labels in the sequence for clarity and completeness of description. Some, but not all, examples include labels (101A-101K) in paragraph [0078] and labels (IC1-IC64 & IC65-IC69) in paragraph [0080], etc.). Page 21, in paragraph [0088], last line therein, note that “607-623” should be rewritten as --607, 609, 611, 613, 615, 617, 619, 621 and 623-- for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 6. Page 21, in paragraph [0089], third line therein, note that “603-623” should be rewritten as --603, 605, 607, 609, 611, 613, 615, 617, 619, 621 and 623-- for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 6. Page 22, in paragraph [0090], 8th & 9th lines and 9th & 10th line therein, note that “701-707, … 711-713” should be rewritten as --701, 703, 705 and 707, … 711 and 713-- for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 7. Page 24, in paragraph [0094], 10th line therein, note that the recitation of “supply factors” is still vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 25, in paragraph [0097], 5th, 7th lines therein, note that “1005-1007” should be rewritten as --1005 and 1007-- for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 10. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that the following reference labels appearing in the indicated drawings need to be correspondingly described in the specification description of those drawings for clarity and completeness of description: In FIG. 2, the designations (1, 2, …N) therein; FIG. 4, the various descriptive labeling in the corresponding blocks (e.g. 8V, 32V, VOUT, HOUT, IFV, IFH, etc.); FIG. 6 (VOUT(+/-), HOUT(+/-), Tx#/Rx#); FIG. 6 (615, To Power Combiner/Divider); FIGS. 7, 8 {RFC(+/-), RFD#(+/-)}; FIG. 10, various descriptive terminology including features in block 200); FIGS. 13, 14, the various phase shift amounts; FIG. 15 (1510, 1520). 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 1-14; 15-19; 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 9; in claim 15, line 12; in claim 20, line 34: note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “forming a close loop” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention, respectively at these instances. As evident from FIG. 15, each transformer portion, while forming a loop, does not form a loop that is “closed”, but rather the ends of the transformer section terminate at respective differential ports and thus a “closed” loop cannot be formed. Accordingly, appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 18, lines 2, 3, note that the term “mirrors” is still vague in meaning at these instances, especially since no symmetrical orientation has been established to give meaning to the term “mirrors”. For example, see the amendments made to claim 4. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 20, line 22, note that the terminology “power (2, (M)-1)” is still vague in meaning (e.g. see the amendments made to claim 15) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
Note that the following claims have been found objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 1, line 9; in claim 15, line 13; in claim 20, line 34, should the recitation of “where in” be rewritten as --wherein--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization?
In claims 3, 17, lines 2, 4 in each claim, note that --first transformer-- should be inserted prior to “winding”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization.
In claim 15, line 3, note that the designation “2^M-1” should be rewritten as --2M-1-- for an appropriate characterization.
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, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Rajendran et al (of record).
Rajendran et al (i.e. FIG. 1B) discloses a power combiner/divider circuit (i.e. 140), comprising: a first transformer winding (i.e. coupling part 171) coupled to a differential port (i.e. terminal 175); a second transformer (e.g. an inductor (160A) having coupling part (161) as depicted in FIG. 1B) coupled to the first transformer (171) at a first transformer region and also coupled to a differential port (i.e. a terminal 165); a third transformer (e.g. an inductor (160B) having a coupling part (161) as depicted in FIG. 1B) coupled to the first transformer (171) at a second transformer region and also coupled to another differential port 165). During operation in a combiner mode, note that differential signals (e.g. as evident from related FIG. 3, by the (+, -) designations therein) are input at the differential ports (165) of inductors (160A, 160B) and are output at differential port (175) as a combined signal. Conversely, due to the reciprocal nature of the circuit (140) in a divider mode, a differential signal input at differential port (175) is output at differential outputs (165) of inductors (160A, 160B) as divided signals. Moreover, the schematically depicted power combiner/divider circuit depicted in FIG. 1B can be physically realized by the configuration in FIG. 3, where the first transformer winding is configured as a closed loop (i.e. as far as such terminology can be understood) with a first transformer region (e.g. 310A) and a second transformer region (e.g. 310B), such that the first transformer region (310A) couples with a second transformer winding (e.g. 320) and the second transformer region (310B) couples with a third transformer winding(e.g. 330). As evident from FIG. 3, the first and second ends of the first transformer winding (i.e. designated by the (+, -) at the right side of FIG. 3) is necessarily located between the first and second transformer regions (310A, 310B). Regarding claim 14, as evident from FIG. 1B, the arrangement of inductors (160A, 160B) in conjunction with transformer (171) forms a 2-to-1 combiner/divider arrangement.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martineau et al in view of Rajendran et al (both references of record).
Martineau et al (i.e. Fig. 2) discloses a combiner/divider system, comprising: a plurality of exemplary combiner/divider circuits (i.e. (361, 362, 363, 364) in Fig. 2) arranged in M=3 stages (i.e. combiner/divider (361) is a first stage; combiners/dividers (362, 363) are in a second stage; combiners/dividers (364) are in a third stage). However, the divider/combiner system in Fig. 2 of Martineau et al do not disclose the details of the combiner/divider circuit as set forth in the remainder of the claim.
As described in the preceding rejection, Rajendran et al discloses the details of the combiner/divider circuit as set forth in the remainder of claim 15.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have realized each of the exemplary combiner/divider circuits in Fig. 2 of Martineau et al as taking the form of the combiner/divider circuit in Rajendran et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of a specific combiner/divider circuit in place of an exemplary combiner/divider circuit, especially since the exemplary nature of such combiner/divider circuits would have suggested that any equivalent combiner/divider circuit would have been usable, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martineau et al in view of Rajendran et al and Rene et al (all references of record).
Martineau et al (i.e. Fig. 1) exemplarily discloses a front-end system (i.e. RF transceiver (i.e. transmit/receive) system), comprising: a plurality of transmit channels defined by a splitter (i.e. 16), phase shifters (i.e. 321, …, 32n), power amplifiers (i.e. 341, …, 34n) and antennas (i.e. 41, …, 4n) and a plurality of receive channels defined by antennas (i.e. 4’1, …, 4’n), low nose amplifiers (i.e. 541, …, 54n), phase shifters (i.e. 521, …, 52n) and a combiner (i.e. 26), where respective transmit channels and corresponding receive channels collectively define a plurality of transceivers. However, the front end of Martineau et al does not disclose the details of the combiner/splitter arrangement, as well as not disclosing that the antennas operate with specified polarization.
As described in the preceding rejection (i.e. with respect to claim 15), the resultant combination discloses a multi-stage combiner/divider arrangement, where each combiner/divider circuit includes differential input(s)/output(s) that combine/divide a signal through transformer coupling. Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references to have realized the combiner/splitter (26/16) in Fig. 1 of Martineau et al to have taken the form of a multi-stage combiner/divider circuit having differential input(s)/output(s) and transformer coupling, as taught by the above resultant combination. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent combiner/divider circuits, especially given the exemplary nature of combiner/divider circuits (26/16), thereby suggesting the obviousness of the modification. Accordingly, it would have been further obvious in view of the Rene et al reference, to have further realized the antenna (4, 4’) in Fig. 1 of Martineau et al to have taken the form of an antenna with two feed points (e.g. see FIGS. 1, 2 in Rene et al) to thereby provide for specified (e.g. circular) polarization, such as taught by Rene et al. Such a further modification would have been considered obvious for providing the benefit of providing for polarization of signals within a transceiver arrangement, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a further modification.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejections of record, applicants’ contend that the Rajendran et al reference fails to disclose the first transformer winding having first and second transformer regions which couple with a second transformer winding and a third transformer winding, respectively. Moreover, applicants’ contend that the first and second transformer windings form a “closed loop” and that the first and second ends of the first transformer winding are between the portions defining the first and second transformer regions.
In response, the examiner is not persuaded by applicants’ contention. Particularly, contrary to applicants’ contention, the examiner has indicated that the first transformer winding (310) does indeed include a first transformer region (310A) and a second transformer region (310B) coupled to the second transformer winding (320) and the third transformer winding (330). Furthermore, contrary to applicants’ contention, the first winding transformer does indeed form a closed loop (as far as such is understandable) and the ends of the first transformer winding are indeed located between the first transformer region (310A) and the second transformer region (310B).
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112, paragraph(b) and the objections to the specification, applicants’ response substantially addresses the majority of the issues regarding indefiniteness and the objections to the specification. However, outstanding objections and issues of indefiniteness (e.g. see the above Office action) remain and thus those issues need to be addressed in any future response.
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
