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 2, in paragraph [0004], third line therein, note that --throughout the detail description of the drawings-- should be inserted after “elements” for an appropriate characterization. Page 2, in paragraph [0013], note that the label “69” should be deleted as being unnecessary. Page 4, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 6, in paragraph [0031], 7th line therein and page 28, in paragraph [00124], second line therein, note that the designation “I.e.” should be rewritten as --That is to say--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 9, in paragraph [0045], second line therein, note that the recitation of “which when” should be rewritten as --wherein such instructions, when-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 11, in paragraph [0057], 14th line therein, note that the recitation of “signal-divisional” should be rewritten as --signal-combination-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 12, in paragraph [0059], note that the recitation of the terminology “mid-point of a winding” is vague in meaning, especially since the winding has not been positively defined with any particular geometry to give meaning to the terminology “mid-point” and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 12, in paragraph [0060], note that the term “mirrors” is vague in meaning, especially since no symmetrical orientation has been established to give meaning to the term “mirrors” and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 13, in paragraph [0071], third line therein; page 15, in paragraph [0072], 17th line therein; page 20, in paragraph [0090], 6th line therein; page 21, in paragraph [0091], 6th line therein: note that the terminology “power(2, (M)-1)” is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 14, in paragraph [0072], third line therein, note that the recitation of “relationship to an adjacent of” should be rewritten as --relationship with respect to an adjacent one of-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 15, in paragraph [0073], third line therein, note that the recitation of “referred to as a wireless device,” should be rewritten as --referred to as a “wireless device”,-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 16, in paragraph [0074], 6th line therein, note that the recitation of “often called the low noise block (LNB) or low noise down-converter (LND)” should be rewritten as --often called the “low noise block (LNB)” or “low noise down-converter (LND)”-- for an appropriate characterization. Throughout the detail description, note that for instances where a sequence of reference labels are cited, such sequence should include the individual labels in the sequence for clarity and completeness of description. Some, but not all, examples include: (labels (211-213; 221-223) in paragraph [0076]; labels (101A-101J) in paragraph [0078]; labels (IC1-IC64 & IC65-IC69) in paragraph [0080]; labels (603-623) in paragraph [0089]; labels (701-707) in paragraph [0090]; labels (1201-1203; 1211-1213) in paragraph [00121]; labels (1800A-1800D; 1503-1505; 1501-1505) in paragraphs [00146] & [00147]; etc.). Page 17, in paragraph [0078], for labels (101A-101J), note that the nature of each one of these “communication devices” should be further explained as to what they represent for clarity and completeness of description. Page 19, in paragraph [0087], second line therein, note that --(T/R)-- should be inserted prior to “switch” for an appropriate characterization; 4th line therein, note that it is unclear whether the reference to “switch 613” would be an appropriate characterization, especially since “switch 613” was previously recited in the third line of this paragraph and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 21, in paragraph [0092], second to 4th lines therein, note that the labels (V, H, 2V, 2H) are respectively vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 22, in paragraph [0094], second line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 4-- should be inserted after “IC1-IC64” for an appropriate characterization consistent with what is depicted in that drawing; 7th line therein, note that the recitation of “based on a score” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed; 9th line therein, note that the recitation of “supply factors” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 27, in paragraph [00117], 9th line therein, note that the term “their” should be deleted as being unnecessary; 10th line therein, note that --a radiating-- should be inserted prior to “patch” for an appropriate characterization. Page 29, in paragraph [00125], second, third lines therein, note that --(FIG. 12B)-- should be inserted after “110” (i.e. second line therein) and inserted after “120” (i.e. third line therein), respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations. Page 37, in paragraph [00147], third line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 15-- should be inserted after “1501” for an appropriate characterization; 4th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 18C-- should be inserted after “C1-C2” for an appropriate characterization. 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. 3, “101K”; 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. 9, “911”; FIG. 10, various descriptive terminology including features in block 200); FIG. 12C, “Y”; FIGS. 13, 14, the various phase shift amounts; FIG. 15 (1510, 1520). Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification needs to provide a corresponding description that the pair of second & third capacitors have the same capacitance value as recited in claim 10.
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 claims 1, 15, 20, for the description of the “signal-division mode” and the “signal-combination mode”, it is noted that “a (first/second/third) differential signal” is respectively associated with corresponding ports in each mode. Accordingly, it is unclear whether such designations would be appropriate for each of the division mode & combination mode, especially since it is unclear whether these signals are the same signals or different signals being applied to the corresponding ports in each of the division and combination modes. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 3, 17, note that the respective recitation of the terminology “mid-point of a winding” is vague in meaning at these instances, especially since the winding has not been positively defined with any particular geometry to give meaning to the terminology “mid-point”. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 4, 18, lines 2, 3 in each claim, note that the term “mirrors” is vague in meaning at these instances, especially since no symmetrical orientation has been established to give meaning to the term “mirrors”. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 11, last line, note that it is unclear how the recitation of “outputs Vout1 and Vout2”, as recited herein, would relate to the Vout1(+/-), Vout2(+/-) designations, as recited in independent claim 1 (i.e. one in the same, separate and distinct, etc.). Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 15, line 3 and in claim 20, line 22, note that the terminology “power(2, (M)-1)” is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances and thus 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, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Rajendran et al.
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) 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) 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. 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.
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.
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 provide the benefit of providing for polarization of signals within a transceiver arrangement, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a further modification.
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