DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a response to the amendment filed 7/13/2026. Claims 1-22 are pending and are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is indefinite because it is incomplete, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 17 is indefinite because of the technical deficiencies of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-12, 15, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie (US 2006/0001460).
Regarding claim 1, Xie’s figure 2 shows A frequency divider circuit comprising: a first latch having at least one clock terminal configured to receive a radio frequency input signal (112 receives positive and negative clock signals. The limitation “having at least one clock terminal configured to receive a radio frequency input signal” is an intended use and ,moreover, Xie’s latch circuit 112 is capable of receiving a radio frequency input signal. Applicant should note the RF input signal is not a component of the first latch, it is instead what the first latch receives. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitation of the claim. Ex. Parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); a first output amplifier (130) having at least one input coupled to at least one output of the first latch; a second latch (114) having at least one input coupled to at least one output of the first output amplifier; a second output amplifier (130) having at least one input coupled to at least one output of the second latch, and having at least one output (OUTP, OUTN) coupled to at least one input of the first latch (IN, IN/) as called for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, wherein each of the first latch, the first output amplifier, the second latch, and the second output amplifier is configured to receive a respective bias signal (current sources I1 and I4).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the second latch comprises at least one clock terminal configured to receive the radio frequency input signal (CLKN, CLKP, the limitation “the radio frequency input signal” is an intended use and ,moreover, Xie’s latch circuit 112 is capable of receiving a radio frequency input signal. Applicant should note the RF input signal is not a component of the first latch, it is instead what the first latch receives. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitation of the claim. Ex. Parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the first signal (CLKN, CLKP) is a radio frequency signal.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the frequency divider circuit is configured to divide a frequency of the first signal by two.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the first latch, the second latch, the first output amplifier, and the second output amplifier are powered with a same power supply voltage (VDD).
Regarding claims 10-11, wherein the first latch, the second latch, the first output amplifier, and the second output amplifier receive a same reference voltage (VSS/ground potential).
Regarding claim 12, Xie’s figure 2 shows A frequency divider circuit comprising: a first latch (112 receives positive and negative clock signals (CLKP and CLKN). The limitation “having at least one clock terminal configured to receive + and – components of a radio frequency input signal” is an intended use and ,moreover, Xie’s latch circuit 112 is capable of receiving a radio frequency input signal. Applicant should note the RF input signal is not a component of the first latch, it is instead what the first latch receives. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitation of the claim. Ex. Parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); a first output amplifier (130) having first and second inputs respectively coupled to first and second outputs of the first latch; a second latch (114) having first and second inputs respectively coupled to first and second outputs of the first output amplifier; and a second output amplifier (130) having first and second inputs respectively coupled to first and second outputs of the second latch, and having first and second outputs (OUTP, OUTN) respectively coupled to first and second inputs of the first latch (IN, IN/) as called for in claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, , wherein each of the first latch, the first output amplifier, the second latch, and the second output amplifier is configured to receive a respective bias signal (current sources I1 and I4).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the first signal (CLKP, CLKN) is the radio frequency signal (the limitation “the radio frequency input signal” is an intended use and ,moreover, Xie’s latch circuit 112 is capable of receiving a radio frequency input signal).
Regarding claim 19, the frequency divider circuit is configured to divide a frequency of the + and – components of the radio frequency input signal by two (the limitation “the radio frequency input signal” is an intended use and ,moreover, Xie’s latch circuit 112 is capable of receiving a radio frequency input signal. Applicant should note that the RF input signal is not a component of the first latch, it is instead what the first latch receives. Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitation of the claim. Ex. Parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the first latch, the second latch, the first output amplifier, and the second output amplifier are powered with a same power supply voltage (VDD).
Regarding claims 21-22, wherein the first latch, the second latch, the first output amplifier, and the second output amplifier receive a same reference voltage (Vss/ground potential).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 2006/0001460) in view of Stueve (US 2009/0059948) and Ito (USP 10,333745).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 13-14, Xie’s figure 2 shows a frequency divider comprising all the aspects of the present invention for a first capacitor and a second capacitor coupled between input terminal and output terminals as called for in claims 2-3 and 13-14.
Stueve and Ito references teach that capacitors can be used to couple between output terminals of one circuit and input terminals of another circuit. Such an arrangement is known as AC coupling capacitors which are used to block DC components and to preserve signal integrity (see Stueve’s C1 and C2; Ito’s C1 and C3; paragraph 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include capacitors between input terminals of one circuit and output terminals of another circuits for the purpose of preserving signal integrity as taught by STueve and Ito references.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 2006/0001460) in view of Takahashi et al. (USP 6,268,752).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Xie reference discloses a frequency divider circuit comprising all the aspects of the present invention except wherein the first and second latches each receives a respective voltage bias signal as called for in claims 5 and 15.
Takahshi et al.’s figure 1 discloses latch circuits (MF and SF) each biases by a respective bias voltage (VCB) applied to a transistor Q. Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Xie’s current sources I1 replaced with a bias voltage and transistor as taught by Takashi et al. reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In this regard, applicant’s cited prior art has been carefully considered.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN THIEU LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUAN T LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights