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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (US 20130225107) in view of Wihelmsson et al. (US 20110116490) or further in view of Nosaka (US 20190081613.
As to claim 1, Lane et al.’s figures 2 and 5B show transceiver 220 comprising transmitter (240 and 232) and receiver (264, 262), wherein the transmitter comprises selectable filter (540b, figure 5B). The figures fail to show that receiver (264 and 262) having similar selectable filter circuit. However, Wihelmsson et al.’s figures 4b, 6, 8 and 10 show transmitter and receiver in transceiver circuit having similar selectable filter circuit (figure 10), and/or Nosaka’s figure 1 shows transmitter and receiver in transceiver circuit having similar selectable filter circuit (22A and 22B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use similar Lane’s filter circuit for Lane et al.’s receiver for the purpose of maximizing quality of performance of the while minimizing any wasting of system resources. Thus, the modified Lane et al.’s figures show: an acoustic filter (Lane et al.’s ¶0031 or Wihelnsson’s ¶0116, Nosaka’s figure 3) assembly for operating at a first band (i.e., Band 40) adjacent to a second band (i.e., ISM Band, figures 4A and 4B) without a spacing between the first band and the second band, the acoustic filter assembly comprising: a band-pass filter (561, 572-578) configured to allow signals received via an antenna node (since the filter is used in the receiver circuit, see 1003 in Wihelmsson’s figure 10 or Nosaka’s 22B) to pass at a pass band, the band-pass filter having a transition band between the passband and a stopband; and an interface (not shown that receives signal(s) controlling Lane’s switch circuit 561 or output of Wihelnsson’s 1011 controlling filter 1003) configured to receive a control signal that controls a width of the pass band (Lane’s figure 4a and 4b. Lane et al.’s table 1 shows that Full Band and Narrow Band respectively selected in mode 1 and mode 2) such that the transition band is shifted in frequency, the control signal adjusting a location of the transition band between a first position (Lane et al.’s figure 4B) and a second position (Lane et al.’s figure 4a), one end of the transition band near to the stopband being aligned with a boundary between the first band and the second band in the first position, the other end of the transition band near to the pass band being aligned with the boundary between the first band and the second band in the second position. Lane et al.’s figures fail to show that the transition band having a substantially constant width regardless of whether the transition band is shifted in frequency. However, Lane et al.’s ¶0034 teaches that “[t]he width of each transition band (i.e., the steepness of the roll-off) is dependent on the type of filter used for Band 40 filter 372. As shown in FIG. 4A, the upper transition band of Band 40 filter 372 overlaps the ISM band from 2400 to 2500 MHz”. Figure 4B shows that the width of the transition band of Band 40 is about 20 MHz (from 2380 to 2400 MHz) which is within the range of the width of the transition band of Band 40 shown in figure 4A (100 MHz range). Setting the width of the transition band of Band filter 40 in figure 4A to be about 20 MHz is seen as an obvious design preference, by selecting the type of filter as suggested, to ensure optimum performance, see MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 2, the modified Lane et al.’s figures show that the first band has a lower frequency range than the second band.
As to claim 3, licensed and unlicensed bands are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the modified Lane et al.’s transceiver for transceiving signals in licensed and unlicensed bands for the purpose of maximizing quality of performance of the while minimizing any wasting of system resources. Selecting the first band to be an unlicensed band and the second band to be a licensed band is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 4, the modified Lane et al.’s figures show that the control signal is configured to adjust the location of the transition band between the first position and the second position depending on a required amount of traffic in the first band and a required amount of traffic in the second band (Lane’s table 1 mode 1 and mode 2).
As to claim 5, Lane et al.’s ¶0049 teaches that filters 572-576 may cover different frequency bands of interest and supported by wireless device 110. Therefore, selecting the first band to cover a frequency range from 5945 MHz to 6425 MHz is seen as an obvious design preference to operate the device in a defined frequency range of certain regions.
As to claim 6, selecting the boundary between the first band and the second band is located at 6425 MHz is seen as an obvious design preference to operate the device in a defined frequency range of certain regions.
As to claim 7, Wilhenlmsson et al.’s 0116 teaches that “the flexibility of the filters might also be obtained by using one tunable filter rather than several filters.”. Nosaka’s figure 3 shows a tunable filter that is capable of performing Lane et al.’s first and second modes (see Nosaka’s figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Nosaka’s filter for Lane et al.’s filter for the purpose of saving space and cost. Thus, the modified Lane et al.’s figure shows that the band-pass filter includes at least one resonator (Nosaka’s 22p2) which is selectively connected with a reactive element (22c) by the control signal (that controls switch 22SW) to adjust a resonance frequency or an anti-resonance frequency of the resonator.
As to claim 8, the modified Lane et al.’s figures show that the reactive element is at least one of a capacitor and an inductor (further see Nosaka’s figure 11).
As to claim 9, the modified Lane et al.’s figures show that the band-pass filter is configured such that the location of the transition band is shifted using an RF cancellation that involves adding a phase-inverted signal (open the switch with open signal and close with an inverted signal of the open signal) according to the control signal.
As to claims 10-19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arranged Lane et al.’s components (figure 1) on a packaging substrate for the purpose of saving space.
Claim 20 recite similar limitations in claims above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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 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