The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, line 25, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 6, line 24, note that --throughout the detail description of the drawings-- should be inserted after “elements” for an appropriate characterization. Page 7, lines 29 & 30, note that the recitation of “also referred to herein as 5G New Radio (NR)” should be rewritten as --also referred to herein as “5G New Radio (NR)”-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 8, lines 20 & 21, note that “also referred to as a femtocell, a picocell or a microcell” should be rewritten as -- also referred to as a “femtocell”, a “picocell” or a “microcell”-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 12, line 1, note that --UL-- should be inserted after channel” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 2A; line 2, note that --DL-- should be inserted after channel” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 2A. Page 13, lines 5, 17, note that --(i.e. BAND1)-- should be inserted after “band”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 2C; line 20, note that --(i.e. BAND1, BAND2)-- should be inserted after “bands” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 2C. Page 14, line 24, note that the acronym “SNR” should be strictly defined (i.e. in words) for clarity and completeness of description. Page 17, line 9, note that --(i.e. BT)-- should be inserted prior to “communication” for an appropriate characterization. Page 18, line 23, note that --resonator filter-- should be inserted prior to “component” for an appropriate characterization; line 29, note that the recitation of “their acoustic reflector electrodes” should be rewritten as --the acoustic reflector electrodes associated therewith-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 19, line 5, note that the recitation of “TC-SAW filter” is vague in meaning (i.e. what does the “TC” mean?) and thus appropriate clarification is needed; lines 23, 24, note that the recitations of “85A to 85N” & “86A1 to 86AN” (i.e. both in line 23) and “86A2 to 86An” (i.e. line 24) should be respectively rewritten as –85A … 85N--, as --86A1 … 86AN-- and as --86A2 …86AN--, at these instances for appropriate characterizations consistent with the labeling in FIG. 4C. Page 20, line 8, note that --RF_IN-- should be inserted after “signal” for an appropriate characterization; line 19, note that --of FIG. 4A-- should be inserted after “53” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 21, line 3, note that the label “Tx/Rx” should be rewritten as --Tx/Rxin-- for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 5. Page 23, line 7, note that --(in dB)-- should be inserted after “decibel” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 7; line 8, note that --from 2.3 GHz to 2.6 GHz-- should be inserted after “frequency” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 7; line 19, note that the recitation of “are subdued by the …” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 24, line 7, note that the term “a” should be deleted as not being necessary; lines 8, 12, note that the term “filter” should be rewritten as --filters-- for appropriate tense. Page 25, line 6, it is noted that --receive-- should be inserted after “diversity” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 9B. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that the following reference labels and/or descriptive wording appearing in the indicated drawings need to be correspondingly described in the specification description of the indicated drawings for clarity and completeness of description: FIG. 4C, “RX1 …RXN”; FIG. 8, the various descriptive wording associated with each graph. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In the graphs depicted in FIG. 8, note that corresponding axis parameters should be provided to designate the nature of these graphs for clarity and completeness of description.
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 6, 7; 10-16; 17 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 claim 6, line 2, note that the recitation of “the transmission” appears incomplete (i.e. transmission of what?). Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 10, last paragraph therein and in claim 17, note that it is unclear how the “at least one dual acoustic wave filter” recited in these claims would be operative connected to the “power amplifier” and “antenna” recited earlier in these claims. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 15, for the “second acoustic wave filter”, note that it is unclear how such a filter would be operative connected to the power amplifier and antenna to provide for the received function. Appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 7, line 1, note that --respective-- should be inserted prior to “passbands” 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 1-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara in view of Nathan.
Kuwahara (i.e. FIG. 6) exemplarily discloses a dual acoustic wave filter, comprising: a first acoustic wave filter (e.g. transmit filter (50) as per claim 6) having a plurality of acoustic resonators arranged as first series resonators (i.e. S11, S12, S13, S14) and as first shunt resonators (i.e. P11, P12, P13) as per claim 2; a second acoustic wave filter (e.g. receive filter (52) as per claim 6) having a plurality of acoustic resonators arranged as second series resonators (i.e. S21, S22, S23, S24) and as second shunt resonators (i.e. P21, P22, P23) as per claim 2; a common ground trace (i.e. shield layer 25) disposed between the first acoustic wave filter (50) and the second acoustic wave filter (52) and where the common ground trace (25) provides a ground connection for the first and second shunt resonators (P11-P13; P21-P23) as per claim 3. Regarding claim 4, as evident from FIG. 6, the first and second shunt resonators (P11-P13; P21-P23) necessarily occupy respective regions that are closer to the common ground trace (25) than respective regions where the first and second series resonators (S11-S14; S21-S24) are located. Regarding claims 5 and 6, as is known in the art, filters formed of series and shunt resonators necessarily operate as band pass filters (e.g. see the Kishino et al reference, which describes filters (105, 113) as bandpass filters). However, Kuwahara does not disclose a substrate where the common ground trace is formed to run from a first substrate edge to a second substrate edge and where first and second sections are provided to accommodate the first and second acoustic wave filters.
Nathan (i.e. FIGS. 1, 2) discloses a substrate (i.e. insulative substrate 1) having a common ground trace (i.e. ground shield area 8) which extends across the substrate (1) from one edge (e.g. side 4) to an opposite edge (i.e. side 5) as well as first and second sections (i.e. areas (10, 11) in FIG. 1), where the respective acoustic wave filters can be mounted (e.g. see FIG. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have realized the acoustic wave filter arrangement in Kuwahara on a substrate arrangement, such as taught by Nathan. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalents, especially since the generic nature of the configuration in Kuwahara would have suggested that any equivalent arrangement (e.g. such as the substrate configuration taught in Nathan) would have been usable therewith, thereby suggesting the obviousness of the modification. Moreover, note that analogous features (e.g. the common ground trace for separating the first and second acoustic wave filters) can be found in each reference, thereby further suggesting the compatibility of the modification of these references. Note that as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant combination would necessarily include the common ground trace being a continuous metal trace (as per claim 9) that would extend between edges of the substrate, consistent with the teaching in Nathan.
Claims 10-15; 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damy et al in view of Kuwahara and Nathan.
Damy et al (i.e. FIG. 2-1) discloses an RF module capable of functioning as a front-end, comprising an antenna (i.e. 122) coupled to a power amplifier (i.e. PA 254), which in turn is coupled to a transmit filter circuit (130-1). However, Damy does not disclose the details of at least one dual acoustic wave filter, as set forth in the bodies of claims 10 & 17, respectively.
As described in the preceding resultant combination of Kuwahara and Nathan, at least one dual acoustic wave filter is disclosed including first and second acoustic wave filters disposed on opposite sides of common ground trace extending between opposite edges of the substrate and configured to electrically connect with shunt resonators of the first and second acoustic wave filters.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have realized the first acoustic wave filter (130-1) as an art recognized equivalent filter, such as taught by the above resultant combination of Kuwahara and Nathan. Such a modification would have been considered as an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent transmit filters, especially since the generic nature of the filter (130-1) would have suggested that any equivalent transmit filter, such as the transmit filter of the resultant combination would have been usable therewith, thereby suggesting the obviousness of the combination. Note that as an obvious consequence of the further obviousness combination with the Damy reference, the further resultant combination would necessarily have met the limitations set forth in claims 11-15.
Claim 8 is 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kishino et al (FIG. 1) discloses a transmit/receive circuit including bandpass filters (i.e. 105, 113) coupled to amplifiers (i.e. 107, 111) and a common antenna (i.e. 109). Tsurunari et al (i.e. Figs. 4, 5) discloses a substrate for mounting acoustic wave filters and includes a ground strip extending from edge to edge in the substrate.
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