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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0001], this section should include the information of a continuation application of the present application related to the parent application such as 18/109,308. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should Claims 2-5 be found allowable, Claims 10-13, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should Claims 7-8 be found allowable, Claims 15-16, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 purports to depend from Claim 1 but does not further limit the subject matter of Claim 1 in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Specifically, Claim 9 recites “An electronic device comprising: the radio-frequency circuit according to Claim 1.” The recitation of a “electronic device” does not, by itself, further limit the circuit recited in Claim 1. Rather, Claim 9 introduces a different statutory class of apparatus without clearly defining the additional structural relationship or limitation imposed on the circuit of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 9 does not include a proper further limitation of the subject matter of Claim 1 and is an improper dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 10-13, 19 and 20 are rejected because they depend on independent Claim 9.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 purports to depend from Claim 6 but does not further limit the subject matter of Claim 6 in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Specifically, Claim 14 recites “An electronic device comprising: the radio-frequency circuit according to Claim 6.” The recitation of a “electronic device” does not, by itself, further limit the circuit recited in Claim 6. Rather, Claim 14 introduces a different statutory class of apparatus without clearly defining the additional structural relationship or limitation imposed on the circuit of Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 14 does not include a proper further limitation of the subject matter of Claim 6 and is an improper dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected because they depend on independent Claim 14.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,389,530. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they can be interpreted to describe substantially identical, very similar claimed limitations, or being obvious which are shown below:
Instant application 19/236,357
U.S. Patent No. 12,389,530
Claim 1: A radio-frequency circuit comprising: a circuit board in or on which a ground electrode is provided;
a first circuit inductor and a second inductor provided on the board; and a capacitor provided on the circuit board; wherein the first inductor and the second inductor are connected in series between a first terminal and a second terminal and coupled to each other via a magnetic field; the capacitor is connected between a connection portion between the first inductor and the second inductor and a ground terminal; the first inductor and the second inductor are cumulatively connected to each other; and relationships of Lp + Lg - M ≥ 0 and Lp - M < 0 are satisfied, where M denotes a mutual inductance occurring between the connection portion and the ground terminal due to magnetic field coupling between the first inductor and the second inductor, Lp denotes an inductance between the connection portion and the ground terminal, and Lg denotes an inductance of a path between the ground terminal and the ground electrode.
Claim 17: The radio-frequency circuit according to Claim 1, wherein the first inductor and the second inductor each include a coil-shaped conductor in a multilayer body including a plurality of insulator layers, the multilayer body is mounted on the circuit board.
Claim 18: The radio-frequency circuit according to Claim 1, wherein the capacitor includes capacitor electrodes and a plurality of insulator layers interposed between the capacitor electrodes in a multilayer body that is mounted on the circuit board.
Claim 9: An electronic device comprising: the radio-frequency circuit according to Claim 1.
Claim 10: The electronic device according to Claim 9, wherein a relationship among the inductance Lp, the inductance Lg, and the mutual inductance M is Lp + Lg - M > 0.
Claim 11: The electronic device according to Claim 9, further comprising a third inductor connected in parallel with the capacitor.
Claim 12: The electronic device according to Claim 9, wherein the first inductor and the second inductor each include a coil-shaped conductor in a multilayer body including a plurality of insulator layers;
the capacitor includes a capacitor electrode; and
when viewed in a direction of a winding axis of the coil shaped conductor of at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor, the coil-shaped conductor includes at least a portion that does not overlap the capacitor electrode.
Claim 13: The electronic device according to Claim 12, wherein the first terminal includes a first terminal electrode on the multilayer body, and the second terminal includes a second terminal electrode on the multilayer body; and when viewed in the direction of the winding axis of the coil-shaped conductor of at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor, the capacitor electrode includes a portion that does not overlap at least the first terminal electrode or the second terminal electrode.
Claim 19: The electronic device according to Claim 9, wherein the first inductor and the second inductor each include a coil-shaped conductor in a multilayer body including a plurality of insulator layers, the multilayer body is mounted on the circuit board.
Claim 20: The electronic device according to Claim 9, wherein the capacitor includes capacitor electrodes and a plurality of insulator layers interposed between the capacitor electrodes in a multilayer body that is mounted on the circuit board.
Claim 6: A radio-frequency filter on a circuit board where a ground electrode is provided,
the radio-frequency filter comprising: a ground terminal connected to the ground electrode; a first inductor and a second inductor connected in series between a first terminal and a second terminal and coupled to each other via a magnetic field; and a capacitor connected between a connection portion between the first inductor and the second inductor and the ground terminal; wherein the first inductor and the second inductor are cumulatively connected to each other; a relationship of Lp - M < 0 is satisfied, where M denotes a mutual inductance occurring between the connection portion and the ground terminal due to magnetic field coupling between the first inductor and the second inductor, and Lp denotes an inductance between the connection portion and the ground terminal; and
a third inductor is connected in parallel with the capacitor.
Claim 14: An electronic device comprising: the radio-frequency circuit according to Claim 6.
Claim 1: A filter module comprising: a circuit board in or on which a ground electrode is provided; and
a filter element on the circuit board; wherein the filter element includes: a first inductor and a second inductor connected in series between a first terminal and a second terminal and coupled to each other via a magnetic field; and a capacitor connected between a connection portion between the first inductor and the second inductor and a ground terminal; the first inductor and the second inductor are cumulatively connected to each other; and relationships of Lp + Lg - M ≥ 0 and Lp - M < 0 are satisfied, where M denotes a mutual inductance occurring between the connection portion and the ground terminal due to magnetic field coupling between the first inductor and the second inductor, Lp denotes an inductance between the connection portion and the ground terminal, and Lg denotes an inductance of a path between the ground terminal and the ground electrode.
Claim 4: The filter module according to claim 1, wherein the first inductor and the second inductor each include a coil-shaped conductor in a multilayer body including a plurality of insulator layers;
the capacitor includes a capacitor electrode and an insulator layer of the plurality of insulator layers that face each other in a stacking direction of the plurality of insulator layers; and when viewed in a direction of a winding axis of the coil-shaped conductor, the coil-shaped conductor includes at least a portion that does not overlap the capacitor electrode.
Claim 6: An electronic device comprising: the filter module according to claim 1.
Claim 7: The electronic device according to Claim 6, wherein a relationship among the inductance Lp, the inductance Lg, and the mutual inductance M is Lp + Lg - M > 0.
Claim 8: The electronic device according to Claim 6, further comprising a third inductor connected in parallel with the capacitor.
Claim 9: The electronic device according to Claim 6, wherein the first inductor and the second inductor each include a coil-shaped conductor in a multilayer body including a plurality of insulator layers;
the capacitor includes a capacitor electrode and
an insulator layer of the plurality of insulator layers that face each other in a stacking direction of the plurality of insulator layers; and when viewed in a direction of a winding axis of the coil-shaped conductor, the coil-shaped conductor includes at least a portion that does not overlap the capacitor electrode.
Claim 10: The electronic device according to Claim 9, wherein the first terminal includes a first terminal electrode on the multilayer body, and the second terminal includes a second terminal electrode on the multilayer body; and when viewed in the direction of the winding axis of the coil-shaped conductor of at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor, the capacitor electrode includes a portion that does not overlap at least the first terminal electrode or the second terminal electrode.
Claim 9: The electronic device according to Claim 6, wherein the first inductor and the second inductor each include a coil-shaped conductor in a multilayer body including a plurality of insulator layers;
the capacitor includes a capacitor electrode and an insulator layer of the plurality of insulator layers that face each other in a stacking direction
of the plurality of insulator layers;
and when viewed in a direction of a winding axis of the coil-shaped conductor, the coil-shaped conductor includes at least a portion that does not overlap the capacitor electrode.
Claim 1: A radio-frequency circuit comprising: a circuit board in or on which a ground electrode is provided;
a first circuit inductor and a second inductor provided on the board; and a capacitor provided on the circuit board; wherein the first inductor and the second inductor are connected in series between a first terminal and a second terminal and coupled to each other via a magnetic field; the capacitor is connected between a connection portion between the first inductor and the second inductor and a ground terminal; the first inductor and the second inductor are cumulatively connected to each other; and relationships of Lp + Lg - M ≥ 0 and Lp - M < 0 are satisfied, where M denotes a mutual inductance occurring between the connection portion and the ground terminal due to magnetic field coupling between the first inductor and the second inductor, Lp denotes an inductance between the connection portion and the ground terminal, and Lg denotes an inductance of a path between the ground terminal and the ground electrode.
Claim 3: The filter module according to claim 1, further comprising a third inductor connected in parallel with the capacitor.
Claim 6: An electronic device comprising: the filter module according to claim 1.
Claims 2-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 2-5, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,389,530 because they are substantially identical.
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 4-5, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,389,530 because they are substantially identical.
Claims 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 9-10, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,389,530 because they are substantially identical.
Reference of Note
The prior art of Record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Hirose et al. (US 11,381,213) teaches a noise filter includes a magnetic core including a magnetic material; and a distance adjusting member that accepts adjustment of a distance between a loop portion and the magnetic core, the loop portion being a portion of one or more conductor wiring lines wired in loop shape out of a first conductor wiring line and a second conductor wiring line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 09:00am to 06:00pm Eastern time.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached on 571-27. 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.
/HAI L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 August 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights