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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesaka (US 20140197903) in view of Nosaka (US 20190115947).
As to claim 1, Uesaka’s figure 1 shows a duplexer connected to an antenna (Ant) to receive and transmit signals in different frequency bands, the duplexer comprising: a receiving filter and transmission filter. The figure fails to show that the receiving filter filters a low-frequency band of the same band being used and the transmission filter filters a high-frequency band of the same band. However, Nosaka’s figure 11 shows a duplexer that filter 81 is used for as a transmitter for transmitting high frequency signal in band C and is used as a receiver for receiving high frequency signal in band D, i.e., B20-Tx and B27_Rx shown in figure 12, and filter 82 is used as a receiver for receiving low frequency signal in band C and is used as a transmitter for transmitting low frequency signal in band D, i.e., B20-Rx and B27-Tx in figure 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Uesaka’s filter 100 for receiving low frequency signal in a different band and use Uesaka’s filter 200 for transmitting high frequency signal in the different band for the purpose of saving space and cost and communicate with external signal in different band. Thus, Uesaka’s 100 and 200 are respectively considered as a receiver 100 and transmitter 200. The modified Uesaka’s figure 1 further shows that the receiving filter (100) comprises at least two or more series resonators (11-15) connected in series; and two or more parallel resonators (21, 31, 41, 51) connected in parallel, respectively, to the series resonators, a first parallel resonator (21) and a second parallel resonator (31), which constitute the parallel resonators, are sequentially connected closest to the antenna, and the second parallel resonator has a relatively higher resonant frequency than the first parallel resonator (Uesaka’s ¶0044). The modified Uesaka’s figure 1 further fails to show that the second resonator comprises a reflector and wavelength relationship as claimed. However, resonator having reflector with different wavelength from its central position resonator is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include reflector in the second parallel resonator for the purpose of reducing noise. Setting a wavelength of the reflector to satisfy the equation: LR ≤0.965xLIDT, wherein LRef denotes a wavelength of the reflector and LIDT denotes a wavelength corresponding to a central position of the second parallel resonator, is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 4, the modified Uesaka’s figure 1 shows that the second parallel resonator has a relatively smaller capacitance compared to the first parallel resonator (Uesaka’s ¶0044).
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (CN 109831178) in view of Nosaka (US 20190115947).
As to claim 1, Pang et al.’s figure 4 shows a duplexer connected to an antenna (Ant) to receive and transmit signals in different frequency bands, the duplexer comprising: a receiving filter and transmission filter. The figure fails to show that the receiving filter filters a low-frequency band of the same band being used and the transmission filter filters a high-frequency band of the same band. However, Nosaka’s figure 11 shows a duplexer that filter 81 is used for as a transmitter for transmitting high frequency signal in band C and is used as a receiver for receiving high frequency signal in band D, i.e., B20-Tx and B27_Rx shown in figure 12, and filter 82 is used as a receiver for receiving low frequency signal in band C and is used as a transmitter for transmitting low frequency signal in band D, i.e., B20-Rx and B27-Tx in figure 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Pang et al.’s filter 101 for receiving low frequency signal in a different band and use Pang et al.’s’ filter 102 for transmitting high frequency signal in the different band for the purpose of saving space and cost and communicate with external signal in different band. Thus, Pang et al.’s 101 and 102 are respectively considered as a receiver 101 and transmitter 102. The modified Pang et al.’s figure 4 further shows that the receiving filter (101) comprises at least two or more series resonators (as shown) connected in series; and two or more parallel resonators connected in parallel, respectively, to the series resonators, a first parallel resonator (the combination of 105 and the resonator connected in parallel to 105) and a second parallel resonator (middle parallel resonator), which constitute the parallel resonators, are sequentially connected closest to the antenna, and the second parallel resonator has a relatively higher resonant frequency than the first parallel resonator (it is known that resonant frequency of two parallel connected resonators is smaller than resonant frequency of a single resonator in the parallel connected resonators. Therefore, the resonant frequency of the combination of 105 and the resonator connected in parallel to 105 is smaller than the resonant frequency of other shown resonators assuming that the shown resonators except for 105 and 106 have the same resonant frequency or setting the shown resonators having the same resonant frequency is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance). The modified Pang et al.’s figure 4 further fails to show that the second resonator comprises a reflector and wavelength relationship as claimed. However, resonator having reflector with different wavelength from its central position resonator is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include reflector in the second parallel resonator for the purpose of reducing noise. Setting a wavelength of the reflector to satisfy the equation: LR ≤0.965xLIDT, wherein LRef denotes a wavelength of the reflector and LIDT denotes a wavelength corresponding to a central position of the second parallel resonator, is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, the modified Pang et al.’s figure 4 shows that a first series resonator and a second series resonator, which constitute the series resonators, are sequentially connected closest to the antenna, and the first parallel resonator (the combination of 105 and resonator connected in parallel to 105) is connected at a junction between the first series resonator and the second series resonator, and has a lower resonant frequency than the first series resonator.
As to claim 4, the modified Peng et al.’s figure shows that the second parallel resonator has a relatively smaller capacitance compared to the first parallel resonator (capacitance of parallel connected resonators is greater than capacitance of a single resonator in the parallel circuit, therefore greater than the capacitance of the second parallel resonator).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Official Notice was taken in the rejection of canceled claim 3 which has been incorporated in current claim 1 (MPEP 2144.03). Komatsu et al, (US 20230008248), is evidence that teaches resonator having reflector with different wavelength from its central position resonator is well known in the art (figures 2A-2B and ¶0033). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include reflector in the second parallel resonator for the purpose of reducing noise. Setting a wavelength of the reflector to satisfy the equation: LR ≤0.965xLIDT, wherein LRef denotes a wavelength of the reflector and LIDT denotes a wavelength corresponding to a central position of the second parallel resonator, is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance, MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights