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 3, in paragraph [0006], 12 & 13th line therein and page 10, lines 3-6, for the “(first/second) modulator”, note that it is unclear whether the terminology of “modulator” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention, respectively at these instances, when the “modulator” is implemented as a “switch”, especially since it is unclear as to how the on/off nature of the switch would be capable of performing any modulation that is typically characterized by a “modulator”. Page 3, in paragraph [0006], 15th & 16th lines therein, note that the recitation of “is one of phases of the N number of signal paths defining one period” is vague in meaning, especially since no relationship to any “phases” and “period” has been previously established. Page 6, in paragraph [0024], 4th, 5th, 6th lines therein, note that the designations of “11 to 1N” (i.e. 4th line therein), of “21 to 2N” (i.e. 5th line therein) and of “31 to 3N” (i.e. 6th line therein) should be respectively rewritten as --11, 12, …, 11N--, as --21, 22, …, 2N-- and as --31, 32, …, 3N--, at these instances for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 1. Page 8, in paragraph [0034], second line therein and page 10, in paragraph [0041], third line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 1-- should be inserted after “embodiment”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 8, in paragraph [0034], 4th, 14th lines therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 1-- should be inserted after “3N” (i.e. 4th line therein) and inserted prior to “the base” (i.e. 14th line therein), respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations; third line therein, note that the designation of “s1 to SN” should be rewritten as --s1, s2, …, sN-- for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 1; 8th, 9th lines therein, note that labels (T, T/N) are vague in meaning, especially since such labels do not appear in any of the drawings and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 12, in paragraph [0046], 11th line therein, note that the recitation of “in a range from” should be rewritten as --in dB over a frequency range in GHz from-- for an appropriate characterization consistent with what is depicted in FIG. 4A. Page 14, in paragraph [0055], first line therein; page 23 in paragraph [0086], first line therein; page 24, in paragraph [0088], first line therein: note that the pronoun “This” should be rewritten, respectively at these instances to indicate the corresponding intended feature for clarity and completeness of description. Page 15, in paragraph [0059], 7th line therein, note that the recitation of “so-called shunt capacitor” should be rewritten as --so-called “shunt capacitor”-- for an appropriate characterization. Throughout the detail description of the drawings, for the description of certain individual drawings, it is noted that such descriptions include reference labels which do not appear in the drawing being described and thus those reference labels need to be associated with drawing(s) in which such label actually appears for clarity and completeness of description. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The following labels and descriptive wording appearing in the indicated drawings need to be correspondingly described in the specification description of those drawings for clarity and completeness of description: FIG. 2 (OFF, TIME); FIGS. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 7A, 7B, {ISOLATION LOSS (dB), FREQUENCY (GHz)}; FIGS. 4A, 4B (TERMINAL 111 – TERMINAL 112); FIGS. 5A, 5B, 7A, 7B (TERMINALS 110 – TERMINAL 120). 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 1-9 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 claims 1, 3, for the “(first/second) modulator”, note that it is unclear whether the terminology of “modulator” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention, when the “modulator” is implemented as a “switch” (i.e. claim 3), especially since it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to how the on/off nature of the switch would be capable of performing any modulation that is typically characterized by a “modulator”. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 1, next to last paragraph therein, note that the recitation of “is one of phases of the N number of signal paths defining one period” is vague in meaning, especially since no relationship to any “phases” and “period” has been previously established. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 2, line 2 & 3, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of the “low pass filter including an inductor and a capacitor” would be consistent with the earlier recitation in independent claim 1 of the (same) “low pass filter” including only “an inductor” and thus appropriate clarification is needed; lines 5 & 6, note that the recitation of “the first switch and the second switch” lacks strict antecedent basis, especially since no such switches have been previously established and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 6, note that it is unclear how “a capacitor”, as recited herein relates to “a capacitor” as recited earlier in line 3 of the claim (i.e. one in the same capacitor, separate and distinct capacitors, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 2, 4, lines 4 & 5 in each claim, note that the recitations “of circuit elements” and “a circuit element” are respectively vague in meaning, respectively at these instances especially since no prior “circuit elements” have been established. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 5, note that it is unclear the “low pass filter” including “only a passive element” would be consistent with what is recited earlier in independent claim 1 (i.e. the low pass filter is “including an inductor”), especially since no clear relationship between the inductor of claim 1 and the only passive element of claim 5 has been established. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 6, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what characterizes “a terminal impedance” and “an input-output impedance”, especially with respect to which one of the first/second “input/output terminal”, such impedances are intended to be associated. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 7, note that it is unclear how “an inductor”, as recited herein would relate to “an inductor, as recited earlier in independent claim 1 (i.e. one in the same inductor, separate and distinct inductors, etc.). Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 8, note that the recitation of “a bandwidth ratio of the N-path filter” is vague in meaning, especially since no prior bandwidth relationship has been established for the N-path filter. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 9, line 4, note that the recitation of “the path” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear as to which one of the “N-signal paths” would be the intended path recited herein. Appropriate clarification is needed.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese (‘149) patent document to Ishihara (cited by applicant) in view of Reedy et al.
Ishihara (i.e. Fig. 8) discloses a N-path filter, comprising: a first input/output terminal (i.e. input terminal 11) and a second input/output terminal (i.e. output terminal 12); a filter section (i.e. 13) including N lowpass filters (i.e. 21, 22, 23, …, 2N) arranged in N signal paths; each signal path including: a first switch modulator (i.e. switches 31, 32, 33, …, 3N) and a second switch modulator (i.e. switches 41, 42, 43, … 4N), which are correspondingly connected to opposite ends of the respective filter (21, 22, 23, …, 2N) in the corresponding signal path, as per claim 3. During operation, the first/second switch/modulators in a respective (e.g. a first) signal path can each be turned-on by a control signal of a like phase (i.e. φ1) to route a signal through the corresponding signal path. Likewise, control signals (φ2, φ3, …, φN) are applied to the first/second switch/modulator in a respective (e.g. second, third, …, Nth) signal path to turn-on the corresponding signal path during an appropriate time period (e.g. see related Fig. 4). However, Ishihara does disclose the nature of the low pass filters, as to whether those filters include at least an inductor.
Reedy et al (i.e. FIG. 1B) exemplarily discloses a typical low pass filter including a series inductor connect by respective parallel capacitors to ground at opposite ends of the inductor.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have realized the low pass filters (21, 22, 23, …, 2N) in Ishihara to have taken a form of a low pass filter as taught by FIG. 1B of Reedy et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent low pass filters, especially since the generic nature of the low pass filter in Ishihara would have suggested that any art recognized equivalent low pass filter (e.g. the series inductor/parallel capacitor low pass filter taught by Reedy et al) would have been usable in Ishihara, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Regarding claim 2, note that as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant combination would necessarily have included a low pass filter including the series inductor connected to parallel capacitors, where the respective capacitors would necessarily be closer to the corresponding one of the first/second terminals. Regarding claim 5, as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant combination necessarily includes a low pass filter that only has passive elements (i.e. the inductor and the capacitors are known in the art to be characterized as passive elements).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the above combination rejection as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ueoka et al.
Note that the above obviousness combination discloses the claimed invention except for the first/second switches being semiconductor elements.
Ueoka et al (e.g. FIG. 1) discloses switches (i.e. 16, 18) that are each connected to opposite ends of a filter (i.e. 20). As evident from FIG. 1, each switch (16, 18) includes semiconductor elements (e.g. transistor switches (3, 4) in FIG. 1) therein.
Accordingly, it would have been further obvious to have realized the first/second switches in the resultant combination to have taken a form of semiconductor elements, such as taught by Ueoka et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent switches, especially since the generic nature of the switches in resultant combination would have suggested that any art recognized equivalent switches (e.g. the semiconductor element switches taught by Ueoka et al) would have been usable in the resultant combination, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a 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