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 .
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 re 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites:
a first multiplexer including a first filter having a first passband and a second filter having a second passband higher than the first passband;
Typically a multiplexer operates as at controlled switch, but without a functional explanation and only describing a filtering operation, it is unclear if this element is a MUX or merely a filter.
It is unclear what structure is meant by “first multiplexer including” two filters.
The claim does not specify how the multiplexer functions or how the filters are arranged.
“Second passband higher than the first passband” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether “higher” refers to center frequency, upper cutoff frequency, lower cutoff frequency, or some other reference.
While the applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, the ambiguity surrounding the first multiplexer limitation fails to meet requirements of 112b.
Claim 1 further recites:
a first switch including a first terminal, a second terminal connected to the first terminal of the first divider, and a third terminal connected to a first end of the first filter and a first end of the second filter;
The phrase “connected to a first end of the first filter and a first end of the second filter” is unclear as to whether the third terminal is connected to both filter ends simultaneously, and if so, how.
It is unclear whether the first ends of the two filters are tied together or separately connected.
The lack of clarity regarding the first switch element fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claim 1 further recites:
a second switch including a first terminal, a second terminal connected to the third terminal of the first divider, and a third terminal connected to a second end of the first filter;
The role of the second switch in the overall circuit is not clearly defined.
The claim does not explain how this switch interacts with the first multiplexer or the third filter.
The circuit path remains ambiguous because the claim does not clearly establish whether this is an alternative path, a control path, or part of a specific switching network.
The lack of clarity regarding the second switch element fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claim 1 further recites:
a third filter having a third passband including a wireless local area network (WLAN) band of 5 GHz or more;
It is unclear whether the third passband merely overlaps a WLAN band, is centered on it, or extends beyond it.
The lack of clarity regarding the third passband element fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claim 1 further recites:
wherein the first terminal of the first switch is connected to the first amplifier or the first terminal of the second switch is connected to a second end of the third filter.
The use of “or” creates ambiguity as to whether the claim requires one connection, the other connection, or both as alternative embodiments.
The lack of clarity regarding the connections fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claims 2-17 are rejected due to their dependence and inclusion of each of the above noted claim elements.
Regarding claim 2; claim 2 recites:
wherein the third passband of the third filter further includes a new radio unlicensed (NR-U) band and a 6-GHz licensed band
The meaning in the art is that NR-U includes the 6Gig frequency bands, therefore having them as claimed is confusing as to how they are associated with different output terminals.
The lack of clarity regarding the frequency bands fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claims 3-6,17 are rejected due to their dependence and inclusion of each of the above noted claim elements.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites:
a second multiplexer including a fourth filter having a fourth passband and a fifth filter having a fifth passband higher than the fourth passband;
Typically a multiplexer operates as at controlled switch, but without a functional explanation and only describing a filtering operation, it is unclear if this element is a MUX or merely a filter.
It is unclear what structure is meant by “first multiplexer including” two filters.
The claim does not specify how the multiplexer functions or how the filters are arranged.
The lack of clarity regarding the connections fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites:
a first input-output terminal for an NR-U band;
a second input-output terminal for a 6-GHz licensed band;
a third input-output terminal for the WLAN band
The term “input-output” is functional and not clearly structural.
The “bands” listed are not numerically bounded in the claim and could change over time.
It is unclear whether the terminal(s) are a dedicated port, a selectable port, or a general terminal intended to operate in that band, (is the terminal exclusive to that band or merely compatible with it.
The lack of clarity regarding the connections fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claims 8-11 are rejected due to their dependence and inclusion of each of the above noted claim elements.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite because it does not clearly define the structure and scope of the recited terminals and frequency bands. The terms “input-output terminal,” “NR-U band,” “6-GHz licensed band,” and “WLAN band” are not clearly bounded, and the phrase “having a fourth passband including” does not sufficiently define whether the passband must fully encompass or merely overlap the recited bands. The connection relationships among the switches, filters, and amplifiers also leave the claimed circuit topology uncertain.
Claims 13-16 are rejected due to their dependence and inclusion of each of the above noted claim elements.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 recites:
a first multiplexer including a first filter having a first passband and a second filter having a second passband higher than the first passband;
Typically a multiplexer operates as at controlled switch, but without a functional explanation and only describing a filtering operation, it is unclear if this element is a MUX or merely a filter.
It is unclear what structure is meant by “first multiplexer including” two filters.
The claim does not specify how the multiplexer functions or how the filters are arranged.
“Second passband higher than the first passband” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether “higher” refers to center frequency, upper cutoff frequency, lower cutoff frequency, or some other reference.
While the applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, the ambiguity surrounding the first multiplexer limitation fails to meet requirements of 112b.
Claim 18 further recites:
a first switch including a first terminal, a second terminal connected to the first terminal of the first divider, and a third terminal connected to a first end of the first filter and a first end of the second filter;
The phrase “connected to a first end of the first filter and a first end of the second filter” is unclear as to whether the third terminal is connected to both filter ends simultaneously, and if so, how.
It is unclear whether the first ends of the two filters are tied together or separately connected.
The lack of clarity regarding the frequency bands fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claim 18 further recites:
a second switch including a first terminal, a second terminal connected to the third terminal of the first divider, and a third terminal connected to a second end of the first filter;
The role of the second switch in the overall circuit is not clearly defined.
The claim does not explain how this switch interacts with the first multiplexer or the third filter.
The circuit path remains ambiguous because the claim does not clearly establish whether this is an alternative path, a control path, or part of a specific switching network.
The lack of clarity regarding the frequency bands fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claim 18 further recites:
a third filter having a third passband including a wireless local area network (WLAN) band of 5 GHz or more;
It is unclear whether the third passband merely overlaps a WLAN band, is centered on it, or extends beyond it.
The lack of clarity regarding the frequency bands fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claim 18 further recites:
wherein the first terminal of the first switch is connected to the first amplifier or the first terminal of the second switch is connected to a second end of the third filter.
The use of “or” creates ambiguity as to whether the claim requires one connection, the other connection, or both as alternative embodiments.
The lack of clarity regarding the frequency bands fails to meet the requirements of 112b.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected due to their dependence and inclusion of each of the above noted claim elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jia (20220069854).
Regarding the claim rejections, it is first noted that the claims are broad and under the broadest reasonable interpretation the reference includes all the claimed limitations. The broadly claimed connections do not explicitly define that the elements are directly connected in the manner claimed without any intermediary elements. The ‘bands’ claimed are not specifically set forth.
Jia shows a first divider 214 with three terminals as per figure 21. Jia shows a multiplexer as broadly claimed as element 217a that includes two pass band filters. Jia has a first switch 168 with three terminals as claimed. Jia includes a second switch 219 with three terminals as claimed. Jia includes a third filter as claimed 217. Jia includes an amplifier 212. The wherein clause at the end of claim 1 is taught by Jia since all the elements in the claim are shown in figure 21 of Jia being connected to each other.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 is essentially the same as claim 1. The only difference is some of the “connected to” limitations. As pointed out in the rejection of claim 1, the claim language “connected to” is broad and taught by Jia in that all these elements are connected to each other.
Regarding claim 2, Jia shows an antenna 169. Again, it is noted that the connected to features are broadly claimed and within the teaching of Jia because all the elements in figure 21 are “connected to” each other.
Regarding claim 3, the amplifier 212 is a power amplifier. The term NR-U refers to new frequency bands very broadly, Jia teaches this feature when it discusses that the radio system is capable of receiving New Radio signals see paragraph 81 and 84. With the claim language being so broad, Jia shows the system is ‘capable’ of receiving 6G signals and WLAN. There is no further limitations in the claim that explain how the system is “configured to” receive signals in a particular band and Jia receives all signals that would match the antenna configuration, those received signals would then be ‘filtered’ out to keep the as shown in figure 21.
Regarding claim 6, the interpretation set forth in claim 1 needs to be adjusted so that the amplifier being discussed is amplifier 218 and it is noted that the amplifier 212 is a low noise amplifier. The term NR-U refers to new frequency bands very broadly, Jia teaches this feature when it discusses that the radio system is capable of receiving New Radio signals see paragraph 81 and 84. With the claim language being so broad, Jia shows the system is ‘capable’ of receiving 6G signals and WLAN. There is no further limitations in the claim that explain how the system is “configured to” receive signals in a particular band and Jia receives all signals that would match the antenna configuration, those received signals would then be ‘filtered’ out to keep the as shown in figure 21.
Regarding claim 19, Jia shows an antenna 169. Again, it is noted that the connected to features are broadly claimed and within the teaching of Jia because all the elements in figure 21 are “connected to” each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3059. The examiner can normally be reached m,t,tr 6-4; w,f 6-noon.
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.
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.
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights