DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 19/210,180 filed on May 16, 2025, Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. The IDS submitted on 05/16/25 has been entered and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Following claims are objected to because of the following informality:
in claim 16, lines 2-3 “method comprising transmitting first communication signals through first channels by:” should be replaced with “method comprising: transmitting first communication signals through first channels;” (note: the limitation “transmitting…” should begin with a new line/paragraph); and
in claim 20, line 6 “the first channel” should be replaced with “the first channels”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-15 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first channel" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (note: claim 1 recites “a first channel group” in line 2 and “each first channel” in line 5). Hence, renders claim 1 and its dependent claims indefinite.
Claim 13 recites "a first impedance" and "a second impedance" (line 10). It is not clear whether said "first impedance" and "second impedance" in line 10 is different from or the same as recited in line 5 "a first impedance" and in line 7 "a second impedance". Hence, renders claim 13 and its dependent claims indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 6 (note: claim 18 recites “a controller” in line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McPartlin (US 2014/0001608 A1).
Regarding claim 16, McPartlin teaches a communication control method, implemented by a communication apparatus (Figure 8: 800), the communication control method comprising transmitting first communication signals (Figure 8: “TX5”/“TX2”) through first channels (Figure 8: “ANT5” & “ANT2”) by: selecting, by one of the first channels connecting to a source node or a destination node, to transmit a first communication signal of the first communication signals through a first branch (Figure 8: the switch coupled to “ANT5”); and selecting, by another one of the first channels not connecting to the source node or the destination node, to transmit a second communication signal of the first communication signals through a second branch (Figure 8: the switch coupled to “ANT2”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
I. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
II. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
III. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
IV. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPartlin.
Regarding claim 17, McPartlin further teaches transmitting the first communication signals through a second channel (Figure 8: “ANT2”), wherein transmitting the first communication signals (Figure 8: “TX5”/“TX2”) through the second channel comprises: selecting, by the second channel, a selected passive circuit from either a first passive circuit or a second passive circuit (Figure 8: the switch coupled to “ANT2” via the capacitor); and transmitting the first communication signals (Figure 8: “TX5”/“TX2”) through the selected passive circuit (Figure 8: the switch coupled to “ANT2” via the capacitor). Although McPartlin teaches in Figure 8 the selecting and further teaches CBT/CRX2, McPartlin does not explicitly disclose in Figure 8 selecting based on a control signal. McPartlin, on the other hand, discloses in Figure 9, Control Logic. Furthermore, McPartlin in Paragraph 110 discloses: the FEM 900 further includes a control logic module 922 for controlling one or more elements of the FEM, such as the switch 902. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize McPartlin’s control logic as claimed control signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to improve performance, Paragraph 111.
Regarding claim 17, McPartlin further teaches wherein selecting the selected passive circuit comprises: sending, by a controller, the control signal to the second channel (Figure 8: the switch coupled to “ANT2” via the capacitor & Figure 9: “Control Logic”); controlling, based on the control signal, a switching circuit to select the selected passive circuit (Figure 8: the switch coupled to “ANT2” via the capacitor & Paragraph 110: the FEM 900 further includes a control logic module 922 for controlling one or more elements of the front-end module, such as the switch 902); selecting, by the switching circuit, the second passive circuit as the selected passive circuit when the second channel connects to the source node or the destination node; or selecting, by the switching circuit, the first passive circuit as the selected passive circuit when the second channel is not connected to the source node or the destination node (Figure 8: the switch coupled to “ANT2” via the capacitor).
Reason for Allowance
11. Carroll (US 2008/0185917 A1) teaches in Figure 3 a first coupler (30) with a first end (34) and a plurality of second ends (32x3), and a plurality of second couplers (14a, 14b & 14c). Bingel (US 7,065,205 B1) teaches in Figure 19 a plurality of couplers (360, 362, 364 & 366). Cern (US 2002/0027496 A1) teaches in Figure 8 a plurality of couplers with a plurality of channels (802, 805, 810 & 815). However, the prior art of record when implemented, would not produce said apparatus as claimed in claims 1 and 13. In addition, claims 19-20 are 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.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SHAWKAT M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1639. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:30AM-3:30PM ET.
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 AIR at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, SAM K. AHN can be reached on (571) 272-3044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAWKAT M ALI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights