The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification is replete with grammatical errors too numerous to mention specifically. The specification should be revised carefully. Examples of such errors are: Throughout the detail description of the drawings, it is noted that certain sequence of reference labels need to be separated by a --,-- for grammatical clarity. For example, in paragraph [59], labels “105 110” & “106 111” should be rewritten as –105, 110-- & --106, 111--, respectively, etc. Page 2, in paragraph [9], lines 7, 8, note that the recitation of “be electrically” should be rewritten as --is electrically-- for idiomatic clarity.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 2, in the heading therein, note that “BRIEF DESCRIPTION” should be rewritten as --DETAIL DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION-- for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 3, in paragraph [18], next to last line therein, note that the recitation of “frequency of input” appears incomplete and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 5, in the brief description of “FIGS. 5A-C” & “FIGS. 6A-D”, note that such drawing numbering designations do not appear consistent with the numbering of those drawings and thus appropriate clarification is needed. At all instances throughout the brief description of the drawing where multiple drawings are reference, note that --in FIG.-- should be inserted prior to the individual drawings of the multiple drawings (e.g. prior to “(7A)” & “(7B)” in paragraph [31], etc.) for clarity and completeness of description. Page 6, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” for consistency with PTO guidelines. At all appropriate instances throughout the specification, note that respective pronouns (e.g. “its, they, it, etc.) should be rewritten to indicate the intended feature for clarity and completeness of description. Page 8, in paragraph [55], first line therein, note that --filter-- should be inserted after “combline” for an appropriate characterization. Page 10, in paragraph [62], third line therein, note that the term “many” should be rewritten as --any-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 10, in paragraph [64], second line therein, note that the recitation of “referred to as ladder synthesis by” should be rewritten as --referred to as “ladder synthesis” by-- for an appropriate characterization. At all instances throughout the detail description, note that the terms “short” or “shorted” should be rewritten as --short-circuited-- for an appropriate characterization. Throughout the detail description, note that for all equations, the corresponding parameters in these equations need to be strictly defined (i.e. in words) for clarity and completeness of description. Page 17, in paragraph [100], 7th & 8th lines therein, for the description therein, note that it is unclear as to which of the numerous curves in the FIG. 10 graph corresponds to this description and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 18, in paragraph [105], 4th line therein, note that it is unclear whether the reference to “FIG. 11” would be consistent with the description herein and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 19, in paragraph [114], note that it is unclear whether “FIG. 6A” depicts the dimensions specified herein and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 20, in paragraphs [117] & [118], second line in each paragraph, note that “low-q” should be rewritten as --low-Q-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 21, in paragraph [119], note that it is unclear whether the reference to “FIG. 16” would be consistent with the description herein and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that applicant should review the detail description of the individual drawings to make sure all features, labels and descriptive wording therein have been correspondingly described in the specification description of those drawings for clarity and completeness of description. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In FIG. 1, note that reference labels (100) appear to have been improperly use to refer to different features therein (e.g. directed to the second end of the resonators (105, 110) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5, 7, 8, 10; 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 5, 15, note that it is unclear whether --each-- of the first and second shunt switches have to be biased on or biased off for the conditions recited in the claim to be met, respectively in these claims. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 7, note that the claim improperly depends on itself. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 10, line 1, note that it is unclear whether --each-- of the first and second capacitors has to be a value of “Cb” for the conditions recited in the claim to be met and thus appropriate clarification is needed; lines 2 & 3, note that it is unclear in what manner the “fourth capacitance” is “at least based on Ca” and thus appropriate clarification is needed; second line from the end of the claim, note that the recitation of “frequency of input” appears incomplete and thus appropriate clarification is needed; last line, note that the recitation of “a ratio of input to frequency admittance” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 11, lines 6 & 7 and in claims 16, 17, line 2 in each claim, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “at least one phase change material”, at these instances would be consistent with the singular recitation of “a phase change material” at claim 11, line 6. Appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 1, last line, note that --, respectively-- should be inserted after “lines” for an appropriate characterization.
In claim 3, line 1, note that the recitation of “lines” should be rewritten as --line resonators-- for consistency in claim wording.
In claims 6, 7, 16, line 2 in each claim, note that --the-- should be inserted prior to “thermal energy” to avoid antecedent basis issues.
In claims 16, 17, line 1 in each claim, note that --respective-- should be inserted prior to “microheater”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 9; 11, 13, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toncich in view of Wyeth et al.
Toncich (i.e. FIG. 3A) discloses a reconfigurable filter (i.e. 77), comprising: a first transmission resonator (i.e. 79) having one end series coupled to an input through a capacitor (i.e. 99), as per claim 9 and a second end coupled to ground; a second transmission line resonator (i.e. 83) having one end series coupled to an output through a capacitor (i.e. 105), as per claim 9 and a second end coupled to ground; a first shunt switch (i.e. MEMS switch 91) is disposed within a length of the first resonator (i.e. at a second end thereof) and is selectively coupled to ground; a second shunt switch (i.e. MEMS switch 95) is disposed within a length of the second resonator (i.e. at a second end thereof and is selectively coupled to ground. Regarding claims 3, 4, 13, 14, as evident from FIG. 3A, the first and second resonators are in parallel to each other to form a combline filter configuration. Regarding claims 5, 15, as evident from related FIG. 2, when the shunt switch is turned off (i.e. not biased), the frequency band is about a frequency (f1) and when the shunt switch is turned of (i.e. biased), the frequency band is shifted to a frequency (f2). Regarding claim 9, as evident from FIG. 3A, additional capacitors (i.e. 107, 109) couple the first end to ground. However, Toncich does not disclose that the shunt switches are comprised of phase change material.
Wyeth et al exemplarily discloses the use of phase change material as electrical switches. In particular, Wyeth et al recognizes the benefits of using phase change material switches in place of other types of switches (e.g. mechanical switches, transistor switches, etc.) for microwave applications.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have modified the MEMS shunt switches in Toncich with phase change material switches, such as taught by Wyeth et al. Such a modification would have been considered as an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent switches usable in a microwave environment, such as taught by Wyeth et al, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Claims 1-7, 9; 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toncich in view of Robinson et al.
Toncich (i.e. FIG. 3A) discloses a reconfigurable filter (i.e. 77), comprising: a first transmission resonator (i.e. 79) having one end series coupled to an input through a capacitor (i.e. 99), as per claim 9 and a second end coupled to ground; a second transmission line resonator (i.e. 83) having one end series coupled to an output through a capacitor (i.e. 105), as per claim 9 and a second end coupled to ground; a first shunt switch (i.e. MEMS switch 91) is disposed within a length of the first resonator (i.e. at a second end thereof) and is selectively coupled to ground; a second shunt switch (i.e. MEMS switch 95) is disposed within a length of the second resonator (i.e. at a second end thereof and is selectively coupled to ground. Regarding claims 3, 4, 13, 14, as evident from FIG. 3A, the first and second resonators are in parallel to each other to form a combline filter configuration. Regarding claims 5, 15, as evident from related FIG. 2, when the shunt switch is turned off (i.e. not biased), the frequency band is about a frequency (f1) and when the shunt switch is turned off (i.e. biased), the frequency band is shifted to a frequency (f2). Regarding claim 9, as evident from FIG. 3A, additional capacitors (i.e. 107, 109) couple the first end to ground. However, Toncich does not disclose that the shunt switches are comprised of phase change material, such as vanadium oxide.
Robinson et al exemplarily discloses the use of phase change material, such as vanadium oxide, as electrical switches. In particular, Robinson et al recognizes the benefits of using phase change material switches (i.e. vanadium oxide switches) in place of other types of switches (e.g. mechanical switches, transistor switches, etc.) for microwave applications.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have modified the MEMS shunt switches in Toncich with phase change material switches, such as vanadium oxide, as taught by Wyeth et al. Such a modification would have been considered as an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent switches usable in a microwave environment, such as taught by Wyeth et al, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Accordingly, as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant combination necessarily provides a reconfigurable filter having shunt switches made of vanadium oxide, as per claims 2, 12. Moreover, as an obvious consequence of the modification, the state of the resultant vanadium oxide shunt switches can necessarily be changed by changing temperature provided as thermal energy from a variety of heat sources, such as microheaters, as per claims 6, 7, 16, 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights