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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/21/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-17, 19 and 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the signal path" in 10-11 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “the RF signal path”.
Claims 2-12 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph deficiency from parent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites ”the capacitive membrane-based switch remaining in the second de-actuated state as a result of failing to be controllable into the first de-actuated state”. This arrangement is unclear as the first de-actuated state is related to the ohmic membrane-based switch not the capacitive membrane-based. It appears this limitation should be directed toward the second de-actuated state, clarification is required.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: its is unclear what limitation “ohmic membrane-based switch remaining in the first de-actuated state as a result of failing to recoil” defines. It is unclear what “failing to recall” means and the claim does not provide enough definition for the term. Clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second signal path" in lines 14-15 and 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “the second RF signal path”.
Claim 12 recites “the RF transmission line” in line 14. It is unclear which RF transmission line is being referred to. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “the first RF transmission line”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are how the output port of the RF switch device is interconnected to the ohmic membrane-based switch and/or the capacitive membrane-based switch. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the ohmic membrane-based switch connected between the input port of the RF switch device and an output put of the RF switch device.
Claims 14-17 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph deficiency from parent claim 13.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are how the capacitive membrane-based switch and the ohmic membrane-based switch are interconnected. The claim recites “the controlling of the capacitive membrane-based switch comprises removing an actuation voltage from a voltage contact coupled to the capacitive membrane-based switch to de-actuate the ohmic membrane-based switch”. It is unclear how controlling the capacitive membrane-based switch to de-actuate the ohmic membrane-based switch. Clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites “the RF transmission line” in line 16. It is unclear as to which RF transmission line is being referred to. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “the first RF transmission line”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the controller" in lines 13 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “the at least one controller”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the controller" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “the at least one controller”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
Claims 1 and 13 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.
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach nor suggest in the claimed combination the claimed radio frequency switch including both ohmic and capacitive membrane-based switches in a signal path.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goldsmith et al. [US 5,619,061] discloses a micromechanical microwave switches with both ohmic and capacitive coupling of rf lines (abs) but fails to teach the claimed interconnection to route a signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
