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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 9,294,138), in view of Lobek (US 2006/0055485).
In regard to Claim 1:
Su discloses, in Figure 1, an N-path filter comprising: a first input-output terminal (x(t)) and a second input-output terminal (y(t)); and N-number signal paths (120, 125, 130 signal paths) connected in parallel to each other (120, 125, and 130 signal paths are connected in parallel) between the first input- output terminal (x(t)) and the second input-output terminal (y(t)), N being an integer not less than three (N=3); wherein each of the N-number signal paths includes: a first modulator (105, 110, 115) connected to the first input-output terminal (x(t)) to modulate an input signal supplied from the first input-output terminal (signal applied to x(t)) or the second input-output terminal; a second modulator (135, 140, 145) connected to the second input-output terminal (y(t)) to modulate the input signal in the same phase as that of the first modulator (105, 110, 115); and a base filter (120, 125, 130) connected between the first modulator (105, 110, 115)and the second modulator (135, 140, 145); the first modulator (105, 110, 115) and the second modulator (135, 140, 145) are operable to modulate the input signal in a phase of one period defined by different phases of the different N-number signal paths (Column 3: lines 8-20).
Su does not disclose the base filter includes a band pass filter including only passive elements; and at least one of the base filters includes at least one of an inductor and an acoustic wave element.
Lobek discloses, in Figure 1, the base filter (5, 6) includes a band pass filter including only passive elements (8-13 respectively); and at least one of the base filters (5,6) includes at least one of an inductor and an acoustic wave element (8-13 are acoustic wave resonators).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the details of the filters taught by Lobek with the filters of Su, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 11:
Lobek further discloses, in Figure 1, the N-path filter according to Claim 1, wherein the base filter is an acoustic wave filter (5 and 6 are acoustic wave filters, ¶ 0009)
In regard to Claim 14:
Lobek further discloses, in Figure 1, the N-path filter according to Claim 1, wherein the base filter is a band pass filter (5, 6) including an acoustic wave element (8, 11) connected to an input-side switch of the N- path filter (4).
In regard to Claim 15:
Su further discloses, in Figure 1, the N-path filter according to Claim 1, wherein the base filter is a band pass filter including no series inductor connected to an input-side switch of the N-path (there is no series inductor connected to the input side mixers 105, 110, 115).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 9,294,138) and Lobek (US 2006/0055485) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Ichihara (US 5,491,453).
In regard to Claim 2:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the first modulator includes a first switch to switch between connection and non- connection between the first input-output terminal and the base filter in response to a driving signal; and the second modulator includes a second switch to switch between connection and non-connection between the second input-output terminal and the base filter at the same timing as that of the first switch in response to the driving signal.
Ichihara discloses, in Figure 1, wherein the first modulator includes a first switch (14-1) to switch between connection and non- connection between the first input-output terminal (11) and the base filter (13-1) in response to a driving signal (S1); and the second modulator includes a second switch (15-1) to switch between connection and non-connection between the second input-output terminal (12) and the base filter (13-1) at the same timing as that of the first switch in response to the driving signal (S1 controls both the first (14-1) and second (15-1) switch).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the switches taught by Ichihara with the modulators taught by Su and Lobek, in order to detect a plurality of tone signals, such as SAT signals which are used for the mobile radio telephone system of the AMPS type and which have extremely small frequency differences (Ishihara Column 10: lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 9,294,138) and Lobek (US 2006/0055485) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Bahamonde et al. (US 11,973,490).
In regard to Claim 9:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the base filter includes an inductor and a capacitor.
Bahamonde discloses wherein the base filter (500) includes an inductor (inductor of 502) and a capacitor (capacitor of 502).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the inductor and capacitor taught by Bahamonde with the filters taught by Su and Lobek, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 10, and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to Claim 3:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a driving frequency of the first modulator and the second modulator is denoted by Fck, a center frequency in a passband of the single base filter is denoted by Fb, a center frequency in the passband in a main response mode of the N-path filter is denoted by (Fck-Fb), a maximum driving frequency at which the main response mode is available is donated by and a minimum driving frequency at which the main response mode is available is denoted by Fck_min, the relationships Fckmin+Fb > Fck_max-Fb and Fck > 2Fb are satisfied.
In regard to Claim 4:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a driving frequency of the first modulator and the second modulator is denoted by Fck, a center frequency in a passband of the single base filter is denoted by Fb, and a center frequency in the passband in a main response mode of the N-path filter is denoted by (Fck-Fb), the relationship 1Fb < Fck < 2Fb is satisfied.
In regard to Claim 5:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a driving frequency of the first modulator and the second modulator is denoted by Fck, a center frequency in a passband of the single base filter is denoted by Fb, and a center frequency in the passband in a main response mode of the N-path filter is denoted by (-Fck+Fb), the relationship 0.5Fb < Fck < 0.66Fb is satisfied.
In regard to Claim 6:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a driving frequency of the first modulator and the second modulator is denoted by Fck, a center frequency in a passband of the single base filter is denoted by Fb, and a center frequency in the passband in a main response mode of the N-path filter is denoted by (-Fck+Fb), the relationship 0.67 Fb < Fck < 1Fb is satisfied.
In regard to Claim 7:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a driving frequency of the first modulator and the second modulator is denoted by Fck, a center frequency in a passband of the single base filter is denoted by Fb, and a center frequency in the passband in a main response mode of the N-path filter is denoted by (2Fck-Fb), the relationships Fck>1Fb and 2Fck_max-Fb < Fck_min+Fb are satisfied.
In regard to Claim 10:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a driving frequency of the first modulator and the second modulator is denoted by Fck and a center frequency in a passband of the single base filter is denoted by Fb, a center frequency in the passband in a main response mode of the N-path filter is (kxFck+Fb), where k is an integer.
In regard to Claim 12:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a terminal impedance of the N-path filter is denoted by Zo and an input-output impedance of the base filter is denoted by Zb, the relationship (Zb-NxZo)/(Zb+NxZo) < 0.316 is satisfied.
In regard to Claim 13:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
wherein the base filter is a band pass filter including a capacitor connected to an input-side switch of the N-path filter.
Claims 16 and 17 are allowed.
In regard to Claim 16:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a driving frequency of the first modulator and the second modulator is denoted by Fck, a center frequency in a passband of the single base filter is denoted by Fb, a center frequency in the passband in a main response mode of the N-path filter is denoted by (Fck-Fb), a maximum driving frequency at which the main response mode is available is donated by Fck_max, and a minimum driving frequency at which the main response mode is available is denoted by Fck_min, the relationships Fckmin+Fb > Fck_max-Fb and Fck > 2Fb are satisfied.
Su (US 9,294,138) discloses, in Figure 1, an N-path filter comprising: a first input-output terminal (x(t)) and a second input-output terminal (y(t)); and N-number signal paths (120, 125, 130 signal paths) connected in parallel to each other (120, 125, and 130 signal paths are connected in parallel) between the first input- output terminal (x(t)) and the second input-output terminal (y(t)), N being an integer not less than three (N=3); wherein each of the N-number signal paths includes: a first modulator (105, 110, 115) connected to the first input-output terminal (x(t)) to modulate an input signal supplied from the first input-output terminal (signal applied to x(t)) or the second input-output terminal; a second modulator (135, 140, 145) connected to the second input-output terminal (y(t)) to modulate the input signal in the same phase as that of the first modulator (105, 110, 115); and a base filter (120, 125, 130) connected between the first modulator (105, 110, 115)and the second modulator (135, 140, 145); the first modulator (105, 110, 115) and the second modulator (135, 140, 145) are operable to modulate the input signal in a phase of one period defined by different phases of the different N-number signal paths (Column 3: lines 8-20).
Lobek (US 2006/0055485) discloses, in Figure 1, the base filter (5, 6) includes a band pass filter including only passive elements (8-13 respectively).
In regard to Claim 17:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
when a terminal impedance of the N-path filter is denoted by Zo and an input-output impedance of the base filter is denoted by Zb, the relationship (Zb-NxZo)/(Zb+NxZo) < 0.316 is satisfied.
Su (US 9,294,138) discloses, in Figure 1, an N-path filter comprising: a first input-output terminal (x(t)) and a second input-output terminal (y(t)); and N-number signal paths (120, 125, 130 signal paths) connected in parallel to each other (120, 125, and 130 signal paths are connected in parallel) between the first input- output terminal (x(t)) and the second input-output terminal (y(t)), N being an integer not less than three (N=3); wherein each of the N-number signal paths includes: a first modulator (105, 110, 115) connected to the first input-output terminal (x(t)) to modulate an input signal supplied from the first input-output terminal (signal applied to x(t)) or the second input-output terminal; a second modulator (135, 140, 145) connected to the second input-output terminal (y(t)) to modulate the input signal in the same phase as that of the first modulator (105, 110, 115); and a base filter (120, 125, 130) connected between the first modulator (105, 110, 115)and the second modulator (135, 140, 145); the first modulator (105, 110, 115) and the second modulator (135, 140, 145) are operable to modulate the input signal in a phase of one period defined by different phases of the different N-number signal paths (Column 3: lines 8-20).
Lobek (US 2006/0055485) discloses, in Figure 1, the base filter (5, 6) includes a band pass filter including only passive elements (8-13 respectively).
Conclusion
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 John W Poos whose telephone number is (571)270-5077. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
