DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 8 of claim 1 and line 1 of claim 12, insert --a-- before each occurrence of “capacitance”.
On line 9 of claim 1 and line 1 of claims 8 and 18: insert --an-- before each occurrence of “input”.
On line 2 of claims 5 and 16; and lines 1-2 of claim 15: insert --an-- before each occurrence of “equivalent”.
On line 3 of claims 8 and 18; and line 5 of claims 10 and 20: insert --a-- before each occurrence of “characteristic”.
On line 4 of claims 10 and 20, insert --an-- before each occurrence of “impedance”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5, 9, and 11-20 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.
On line 1 of claim 2, the Applicant recites “the capacitor”. However, it is unclear to the Examiner as to which ones of the “N capacitors” in claim 1 the Applicant is referring to by the recitation of “the capacitor”, thus deeming the claim to be vague and indefinite.
On line 1 of claim 5, the Applicant recites “the array element”. However, it is unclear to the Examiner as to which ones of the “N array elements” in claim 1 the Applicant is referring to by the recitation of “the array element”, thus deeming the claim to be vague and indefinite.
On line 2 of claim 9 and line 1 of claim 13, the Applicant recites “the capacitor”. However, it is unclear to the Examiner as to which ones of the “N capacitors” in claims 1 and 11 respectively the Applicant is referring to by the recitation of “the capacitor”, thus deeming the claim to be vague and indefinite.
On the penultimate line of claim 11, the Applicant recites “the N capacitor”. However, it is unclear to the Examiner as to which ones of the “N capacitors” previously recited in claim 11 the Applicant is referring to by the recitation of “the N capacitor”, thus deeming the claim to be vague and indefinite. Claims 12-20 have also been rejected under 112(b) by virtue of their dependency to claim 11.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner US Patent 4,291,286 in view of Salib et al. US Patent 5,070,304.
As per claim 1, Wagner discloses in Fig. 3 an array system for signal transmission, comprising: a transmission line (e.g. transmission line 21), comprising N tap points (e.g. N=2 tap points 24 and 25); N array elements (e.g. N=2 array elements each comprising two series capacitors and a transistor (i.e. capacitors 70, 71 and FET 30 form a first array element and capacitors 72, 73 and FET 31 form a second array element), configured to be driven by N voltage signals (e.g. N=2 gate voltages via resistors 74 and 75) fed to N input terminals (e.g. gate terminals of FETs 30 and 31) of the N array elements respectively, wherein each array element comprises a transistor (e.g. FET 30 and FET 31), and N gates of N transistors in the N array elements serves as the N input terminals respectively; and N capacitors (e.g. N=2 capacitors 70 and 72), arranged to capacitively couple the N tap points to the N gates of the N transistors, respectively, to provide the N voltage signals (Capacitors 70 and 72 respectively capacitively couple taps 24 and 25 to the gates of FETs 30 and 31.); and an input capacitance at a gate of a corresponding transistor coupled to the capacitor (Col. 9 line 7, input capacitance is 3.2 pF).
However, Wagner does not disclose wherein a capacitance of each capacitor is less than the input capacitance at the gate of a corresponding transistor coupled to the capacitor.
Salib et al. exemplarily discloses in Fig. 1 a circuit comprising transistors 126 and 128 connected to a transmission line 102 at corresponding taps thereof via capacitors 124 and 125, where a value of the capacitors is 1.1 pF or 1.4 pF (Col. 5 lines 1-5 of Salib et al.). Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have designed the capacitors of Wagner to have been any value, such as for example 1.1 pF or 1.4 pF, as being an obvious design consideration of yielding expected results based on the exemplary teachings of Salib et al. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the combination would have necessarily included wherein a capacitance of each capacitor (e.g. 1.1 pF or 1.4 pF) is less than the input capacitance at a gate of a corresponding transistor coupled to the capacitor (e.g. 3.2 pF).
As per claim 7, the above combination discloses the array system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein respective voltage magnitudes at adjacent tap points are equal.
However, it is well known in the art that voltage magnitudes at adjacent tap points along the transmission line within the combination circuit can be either equal or different from one another. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have designed the voltage magnitudes at adjacent tap points along the transmission line within the combination circuit to have been either equal or different from one another, such as for example equal to one another, as being a well-known obvious design consideration of yielding expected results.
As per claim 8, the above combination discloses the array system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an input impedance viewed from each tap point toward a corresponding capacitor coupled to the tap point is greater than a characteristic impedance of the transmission line.
However, it is well known in the art that an input impedance viewed from a tap point on a transmission line toward a corresponding capacitor connected thereto can be either greater than, less than, or equal to a characteristic impedance of the transmission line. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have designed the combination circuit such that an input impedance at each tap point is either greater than, less than, or equal to a characteristic impedance of the transmission line, such as for example greater than, as being a well-known obvious design consideration of yielding expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4, 6, and 10 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.
Claims 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As per claim 11, the closest prior art Wagner US Patent 4,291,286 discloses an array system for signal transmission comprising all of the limitations recited therein EXCEPT each array element comprising a radiating element; and an integrated circuit, coupled to the radiating element and configured to be driven by a corresponding voltage signal to enable the radiating element to emit a radio frequency signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0961. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Andrea Lindgren-Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/RAKESH B PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights