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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zimmerman (2020/0044345).
Regarding Claim 1, Zimmerman (2020/0044345) discloses a multiplexer (multiplexer) applied in an array antenna module (Fig. 3A), the array antenna module (Fig. 3A) comprising
an array antenna (242, paragraph [0081], Fig. 3A; “array of radiating elements”, abstract), and
a beamforming module (BFN 260, Fig. 3A),
the multiplexer (multiplexer, Fig. 3A) comprising:
a first end (one output to 242, Fig. 3A), and
at least two second ends (inputs to the multiplexer, Fig. 3A) towards the first end (other two inputs are going towards the multiplexer’s output, e.g. output to 242, Fig. 3A);
wherein the first end (line directed to subarrays 242) is connected to the array antenna (242), the other end such as two second ends (another line from BFN that could comprise more than one inputs to the multiplexer) are connected to the beamforming module (BFN, Fig. 3A), the first end and the second end are configured to conduct signals (signals from BFN to antenna 242) between the array antenna (242) and the beamforming module (BFN 260, Fig. 3A).
Further, since the fundamental of multiplexer is to allow multiple inputs to share a single output line. Fig. 3A of Zimmerman is system diagram that illustrates flow charts. Therefore, the connections between BFN and multiplexer are not limited to one. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have provided two second ends (e.g. terminals, inputs, number of wires, etc.) to the multiplexer in order to generate more input signals to the multiple arrays of antenna since Zimmerman also teaches more than one array of antenna (labeled as “X”, in 242, fig. 3A).
In addition, altering the direction or position of the wiring without unexpected and improvement does not change the functionality of a multiplexer and other circuit components. Since it has been held that arranging the position merely involves routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided two second ends (wires) extending towards the first end (wire) in Zimmerman in order to save space and fit the electrical components on a compact PCB as a matter of design choice. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.).
Claim 9 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, Zimmerman discloses the multiplexer of claim 1, wherein when the at least two second ends (as discussed in the preceding rejection for Claim 1) are connected to receiving antennas of the array antenna (242), the first end (as discussed in the preceding rejection in Claim 1) is connected to the beamforming module (BFN), the multiplexer serves as a power combiner (power divider 270 feed power to multiplexer) to receive the signal of the array antenna through the at least two second ends and conduct the signal to the beamforming module (BFN) through the first end (Fig. 3A).
Claim 15 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (2020/0044345).
Regarding Claim 3, as discussed above, Zimmerman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the multiplexer of claim 1, further comprising a first connecting portion, wherein the first connecting portion is connected to the first end and is coplanar with the first end.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a connecting portion such as connection pin or connector to connect the first end and is coplanar with the first end in order to conduct the electricity.
Claim 11 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 5, as discussed above, Zimmerman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the multiplexer of claim 1, further comprising a resistor, wherein the resistor contacts the at least two second ends.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a resistor in any electronic path including Zimmerman in order to obtain the desired voltage or current that fits the circuitry.
Claim 13 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 6, as discussed above, Zimmerman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the multiplexer of claim 5, wherein the resistor and the at least two second ends are in a same layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a resistor with the second ends on the same layer in order to obtain the desired voltage or current that fits the electrical operation in the circuitry.
Claim 14 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, Zimmerman discloses the multiplexer of claim 1, wherein when the at least two second ends (as discussed in the preceding rejection for Claim 1) are connected to receiving antennas of the array antenna (242), the first end (as discussed in the preceding rejection in Claim 1) is connected to the beamforming module (BFN), the multiplexer serves as a power combiner (power divider 270 feed power to multiplexer) to receive the signal of the array antenna through the at least two second ends and conduct the signal to the beamforming module (BFN) through the first end (Fig. 3A).
Claim 15 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 8, Zimmerman discloses the multiplexer of claim 1, wherein when the at least two second ends (as discussed in the preceding rejection for Claim 1) are connected to transmitting antennas of the array antenna (242), the first end is connected to the beamforming module (BFN), the multiplexer serves as a power divider (draw power from power divider network and feed the antenna, Fig. 3A) to receive the signal of the beamforming module (BFN) through the first end and conduct the signal to the array antenna (242) through the at least two second ends (as discussed in the preceding rejection for Claim 1).
Claim 16 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 12, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (2020/0044345) in view of Ghassemiparvin et al, (12,567,673)
Regarding Claim 2, as discussed above, Zimmerman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the multiplexer of claim 1, wherein the first end and the at least two second ends are in different layers.
However, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have fabricated the system on an integrated circuit chip that contains the first and the two second ends in different layers of the chip to fit the circuit components into a compact chip in order to prevent inadvertent electric connection between the ends. For example, Ghassemiparvin et al, (12,567,673) teaches millimeter/centimeter wave transceiver circuitry 38 may be formed from one or more integrated circuits (e.g., multiple integrated circuits mounted on a common printed circuit in a system-in-package device, one or more integrated circuits mounted on different substrates, etc.) (Col. 8, lines 38-42). Ghassemparvin teaches one or more ICs can be mounted different substrates (layers). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fabricated the first and two second ends on different substrates in order to prevent inadvertent electric conduction between the ends since each end is connected to different modules.
Claim 10 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4, as discussed above, Zimmerman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the multiplexer of claim 1, further comprising at least two second connecting portions, wherein one end of each of the at least two second connecting portions is connected to an end of the first connecting portion away from the first end, and the other end of the at least two second connecting portions are connected to the at least two second ends, respectively, the at least two second connecting portions connect the layer where the first end is located and the layer where the at least two second ends are located.
However, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have fabricated the system on an integrated circuit chip that contains two second connecting portions, wherein one end of each of the at least two second connecting portions is connected to an end of the first connecting portion away from the first end, and the other end of the at least two second connecting portions are connected to the at least two second ends, respectively, the at least two second connecting portions connect the layer where the first end is located and the layer where the at least two second ends are located in order to establish electric conductivity between circuit components. For example, Ghassemiparvin et al, (12,567,673) teaches millimeter/centimeter wave transceiver circuitry 38 may be formed from one or more integrated circuits (e.g., multiple integrated circuits mounted on a common printed circuit in a system-in-package device, one or more integrated circuits mounted on different substrates, etc.) (Col. 8, lines 38-42). Ghassemparvin teaches one or more ICs can be mounted different substrates (layers). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fabricated the first and two second ends with connecting portions on the layers in order to establish electric conductivity.
Claim 12 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 19, as discussed above, Zimmerman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the array antenna module of claim 10, further comprising a first ground layer, wherein the first ground layer is located between the layer where the first end is located and the layer where the at least two second ends are located.
Ghassemiparvin et al, (12,567,673) discloses ground layer (82) between the layers (fig. 6, Col. 19, lines 25-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a first ground layer, wherein the first ground layer is located between the layer where the first end is located and the layer where the at least two second ends are located in Zimmerman in order to provide ground connection for the circuit on the different layers.
Regarding Claim 20, as discussed above, Zimmerman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the array antenna module of claim 19, further comprising a second ground layer, wherein the second ground layer is located between the layer where the first end is located and the layer where the array antenna is located.
However, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have fabricated the system on an integrated circuit chip that contains a second ground layer, wherein the second ground layer is located between the layer where the first end is located and the layer where the array antenna is locate in order to fit the circuitry components into a system-in-package device. For example, Ghassemiparvin et al, (12,567,673) teaches millimeter/centimeter wave transceiver circuitry 38 may be formed from one or more integrated circuits (e.g., multiple integrated circuits mounted on a common printed circuit in a system-in-package device, one or more integrated circuits mounted on different substrates, etc.) (Col. 8, lines 38-42). Ghassemparvin teaches one or more ICs can be mounted different substrates (layers). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have fabricated the system on an integrated circuit chip that contains a second ground layer, wherein the second ground layer is located between the layer where the first end is located and the layer where the array antenna is locate in order to fit the circuitry components into a system-in-package device.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (2020/0044345) in view of Mohamadi (7,610,064).
Regarding Claim 17, as discussed above, Zimmerman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the array antenna module of claim 9, further comprising a low noise amplifier (LNA), wherein one end of the LNA is connected to the array antenna, the other end of the LNA is connected to the at least two second ends.
However, Mohamadi (7,610,064) discloses low noise amplifier (220) connected to the antenna (Fig. 2b, Col. 3, line 56 to Col. 4, line 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a low noise amplifier in Zimmerman to amplify the low power signal from the antenna to the microprocessor in order to meet the sufficient value to be processed as taught by Mohamadi.
Allowable subject matter
Claim 18 is 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844