DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s filing filed on 11/08/2024. In virtue of this filing, claims 1-20 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 11/08/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 11/08/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 12 and 18 of U.S. Patent No.: 11,616,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 in the current application have the same scope of claimed inventions with obvious wording variations.
Current application Patent No.: 11,616,485
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 same Claims 1 and 18
Claims 3 and 13 same Claim 2
Claims 4 and 14 same Claim 3
Claims 5 and 15 same Claim 4
Claims 6 and 16 same Claim 6
Claims 7 and 17 same Claim 8
Claims 8 and 18 same Claim 7
Claims 9 and 19 same Claim 5
Claims 10 and 20 same Claim 12
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STePHANE et al. (DE 102016125014 A1, hereinafter, “STePHANE”) in view of Ojo (US Patent No.: 8,306,494).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, StePHANE teaches a wireless device comprising (see figures 2 and 13, wireless receiver):
an antenna configured to receive a plurality of signals, each signal of the plurality of signals associated with a different frequency band see figures 2 and 13, wireless receiver, front end support plurality of frequency band, [0044-0047]); and
a front-end module including an acoustic wave filter, a low noise amplifier with a differential input electrically connected to the acoustic wave filter, the low noise amplifier configured to output a differential signal via a differential output and a balun that converts the differential output to a single-ended output (see figure 2, SAW filter F, LNA, BALUN BN, [0027]).
It should be noticed that StePHANE fails to teach transformer balun. However, Ojo teaches transformer balun (see figure 3A, transformer balun 307, col.8, ln.25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ojo into view of StePHANE in order to convert signals between balanced and unbalanced systems while blocking unwanted noise and matching impedance.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ojo further teaches surface acoustic wave filter (see figure 2A, SAW filter 203, col.5, ln.16).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, StePHANE further teaches a connection between the acoustic wave filter and the low noise amplifier is configured to provide balun functionality between the acoustic wave filter and the low noise amplifier without inclusion of a balun circuit element before a differential input of the low noise amplifier (see figure 1, SAW filter, LNA, [0026], A signal received by an antenna is at the input of a filter F coupled with a single-ended input. The filter F has an integrated balun function and thus provides a differential signal at the output. The difference signal of the filter F is to an amplifier LNA coupled, however, generates an unbalanced or single-ended amplified output signal. The output signal is coupled to a receiving unit RU, which may be part of a transceiver unit, which can also operate reception and transmission signals. The filter F may be a strain gauge filter or a ladder-type filter made of SAW resonators or BAW resonators).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STePHANE et al. (DE 102016125014 A1, hereinafter, “STePHANE”) in view of Ojo (US Patent No.: 8,306,494) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Maxim et al. (US Pub. No.: 2016/0126906, hereinafter, “Maxim”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, StePHANE and Ojo, in combination, fails to teach the low noise amplifier includes a first input transistor configured to receive a first signal from a first output terminal of the acoustic wave filter and a second input transistor configured to receive a second signal from a second output terminal of the acoustic wave filter. However, Maxim teaches the low noise amplifier includes a first input transistor configured to receive a first signal from a first output terminal of the filter and a second input transistor configured to receive a second signal from a second output terminal of the filter (see figure 8, filter 120, LNA 122, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Maxim into view of StePHANE and Ojo in order to convert balanced signals between balanced and balanced systems while blocking unwanted signal.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Maxim further teaches the differential output of the low noise amplifier includes a first output node and a second output node (see figure 8, LNA 122).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Maxim further teaches the first output node is connected to a drain of the first input transistor and the second output node is connected to a drain of the second input transistor (see figure 8, LNA 122, transistor 128, [0036]).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STePHANE et al. (DE 102016125014 A1, hereinafter, “STePHANE”) in view of Ojo (US Patent No.: 8,306,494) and further in view of Maxim et al. (US Pub. No.: 2016/0126906, hereinafter, “Maxim”) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019/0393915, hereinafter, “Miller”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, StePHANE, Ojo and Maxim, in combination, fails to teach the differential output of the acoustic wave filter includes a first output terminal that is a positive terminal and a second output terminal that is a negative terminal. However, Miller teaches the differential output of the low pass filter includes a first output terminal that is a positive terminal and a second output terminal that is a negative terminal (see figure 5, LPF 502, vo positive 508, vo negative 510, [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Miller into view of StePHANE, Ojo and Maxim in order to convert balanced signals between balanced and balanced systems while blocking unwanted signal.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STePHANE et al. (DE 102016125014 A1, hereinafter, “STePHANE”) in view of Ojo (US Patent No.: 8,306,494), in view of Maxim et al. (US Pub. No.: 2016/0126906, hereinafter, “Maxim”) and further in view of Miller et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019/0393915, hereinafter, “Miller”) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Aparin (US Patent No.: 9,391,650).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Maxim teaches the first input transistor of the low noise amplifier (see figure 8). StePHANE, Ojo, Maxim and Miller, in combination, fails to teach a first matching circuit connected between the first output terminal of the acoustic wave filter and the first input of the low noise amplifier. However, Aparin teaches a first matching circuit connected between the first output terminal of the acoustic wave filter and the first input of the low noise amplifier (see figure 2, filter 254, matching 262, LNA 264). Making separable of matching circuit is obvious to one skill in the art.
C. Making Separable
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Aparin into view of StePHANE, Ojo, Maxim and Miller in order to convert balanced signals between balanced and balanced systems while blocking unwanted signal.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Aparin further teaches the first matching circuit is configured to perform impedance matching between the acoustic wave filter and the low noise amplifier (see col.3, ln.39-53).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Maxim teaches the second input transistor of the low noise amplifier (see figure 8). Aparin teaches a second matching circuit connected between the second output terminal of the acoustic wave filter and the second input of the low noise amplifier (see figure 2, filter 254, matching 262, LNA 264).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUAN PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights