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 .
Specification
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (USPN 6,070,059).
With respect to claim 1, Kato et al. discloses, in Fig. 3, a gating apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising:
four main branches (2a, 2c, 2b and 2d), M loading branches (at least two of 6a, 6b, 6c and 6d), M radio frequency switches (4a-4c alone, or, alternatively 4a-4c with 5a-5d, 3b, 3h, 3d and 3f), and four ports (P1-P4),
wherein the M radio frequency switches are all grounded (via 3b, 3h, 3d and 3f), and M is equal to 2 (Fig. 3 comprises at least two and thus meets the claimed limitation of 2) or 4 (Fig. 3 includes exactly 4);
the four main branches are sequentially connected end to end (between nodes A, E, C and G), and one of the four ports is disposed at a junction of two adjacent main branches in the four main branches (P1-P4 connected as claimed via one of 3a, 3e, 3c and 3g);
when M is equal to 4 (M is 4), each of the four main branches is connected to a respective one of the four loading branches (e.g., 6a connected to 2a at node A; 6C connected to 2C at node E, 6b connected to 2d at node C and 6d connected to 2b at node G) , and each loading branch of the four loading branches is connected to a respective one of the M radio frequency switches (6a to 4a, 6b to 4b, 6c to 4c and 6d to 4d); and
when M is equal to 2, (Fig. 3 comprises at least two and thus meets the claimed limitation of “2”) two non-adjacent main branches in the four main branches each are connected to a respective one of the two loading branches, and each loading branch of the two loading branches is connected to a respective one of the M radio frequency switches (e.g., 2A connected to 6a and 2d connected to 6B. Again Fig. 3 comprises at least two loading branches that meet the recited claim limitations. Claim 1 does not restrict additional loading elements due to the transitional phrase of “comprising”).
With respect to claim 3, the gating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the four main branches is a transmission line whose equivalent electrical length is a 1/4 wavelength, and each of the four loading branches is a transmission line whose equivalent electrical length is a 1/4 wavelength (see Col. 7 lines 62-64 the circuitry is designed to at 1/4 wavelength and may be interpreted to be 1/4 wavelength devices).
With respect to claim 6, the gating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the four loading branches is disposed on an outer side of a ring formed by the four main branches (6a-6c are on the “outside” of the ring of 2a-2d).
With respect to claim 8, the gating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the four loading branches is disposed on an outer side of the ring formed by the four main branches (6a-6c are on the “outside” of the ring of 2a-2d).
With respect to claim 9, the gating apparatus according to claim1, wherein any one of the M radio frequency switches is a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET), a diode (4a-4d are diodes), a micro- electro-mechanical system (MEMS), or a reed switch.
With respect to claim 10, the gating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein on/off statuses of respective ones of the M radio frequency switches are controllable to control the gating apparatus to implement a double-pole double-throw gating function (the circuit operates as claimed see Table 2 of Col. 8. Double poles are P1 and P2 and the double throws are P3 and P4).
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooney (USPN 3,626,208)
With respect to claim 1, Cooney discloses, in Fig. 2, a gating apparatus (Fig. 2), comprising:
four main branches (branch of 21 with 22 from INPUT A to OUTPUT AB, branch of 23 with 24 from OUTPUT AB to INPUT B; branch of 25 with 26 from INPUT B to OUTPUT BA; branch of 27 with 28 from OUTPUT BA to INPUT A), M loading branches (at least two of loading branch of 33 and 32 with the line from 32 to 35 connected between 21 and 22; loading branch of 33 and 32 with line from 32/37 to 35 connected between 23 and 24; loading branch of 33 and 32 with line from 32 to 35 connected between 25 and 26; loading branch of 33 and 32 with line from 32 to 35 connected between 27 and 28), M radio frequency switches (each of the four switches/transistors of 35 connected between the line connected to each 32 and ground, see Col. 2 lines 65-71), and four ports (INPUT A; OUTPUT AB; INPUT B and OUTPUT BA),
wherein the M radio frequency switches are all grounded (via the ground connection), and M is equal to 2 (Fig. 2 comprises at least two and thus meets the claimed limitation of 2) or 4 (Fig. 2 includes exactly 4);
the four main branches are sequentially connected end to end (between nodes INPUT A, OUTPUT AB, INPUT B and OUTPUT BA), and one of the four ports is disposed at a junction of two adjacent main branches in the four main branches (connected as claimed at INPUT A, OUTPU AB, INPUT B and OUTPUT BA);
when M is equal to 4 (M is 4), each of the four main branches is connected to a respective one of the four loading branches (at each of the respective anodes of 21 and 22, anodes of 23 and 24, anodes 25 and 26 and anodes of 27 and 28) , and each loading branch of the four loading branches is connected to a respective one of the M radio frequency switches (each of the four switches/transistors of 35 connected to the line connected to each 32/line connected to 32); and
when M is equal to 2, (Fig. 2 comprises at least two and thus meets the claimed limitation of “2”) two non-adjacent main branches in the four main branches each are connected to a respective one of the two loading branches, and each loading branch of the two loading branches is connected to a respective one of the M radio frequency switches (e.g., loads at anodes of 27 with 28 and load at the anodes of 23 and 24. Again Fig. 2 comprises at least two loading branches that meet the recited claim limitations. Claim 1 does not restrict additional loading elements due to the transitional phrase of “comprising”).
With respect to claim 7, the gating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the four loading branches is disposed on an inner side of a ring formed by the four main branches (each transistor of 35 is internal to the ring).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 5 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (USPN 6,070,059) in view of Wallington et al. (USPN 4,129,838).
With respect to claim 2, Kato discloses that M is equal to 4 and electrical length of the four main branches is equivalent to a 1/4 wavelength (see Col. 7 lines 62-64 the circuitry is designed to at 1/4 wavelength and may be interpreted to be 1/4 wavelength devices). Kato fails to disclose that each of the four main branches is a transmission line whose equivalent electrical length is a 1/2 wavelength. However, it is old and well-known that impedance and/or reflections of a transmission is set according to the electrical length in relation to wavelength of the signals being transmitted along the line. Examiner takes official notice between the relationship between electrical length and impedance of a transmission line and the wavelength of the transmitted signal. Furthermore, it is old and well-known to construct a high frequency switch (such as switch similar to that of Kato et al.) with transmission lines have an electrical length of a 1/2 wavelength. This is further evidenced in Fig. 1 (see transmission lines 21-24) and Col. 2 lines 19-20.
It would have been obvious to set the wavelengths of the transmission lines of 2a-2d of Kato et al. such that they have an equivalent electrical length is a 1/2 wavelength, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) one would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of setting the desired impedance of the transmission lines at a desired value.
With respect to claim 4, the gating apparatus according to claim 2, wherein each of the M loading branches is a transmission line whose equivalent electrical length is a 1/4 wavelength (the loading branches have a length equal to 1/4 wavelength, see Col. 7 lines 62-64 the circuitry is designed to at 1/4 wavelength and may be interpreted to be 1/4 wavelength devices). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to set the wavelengths of the transmission lines of 6a-6d of Kato et al. such that they have an equivalent electrical length is a 1/4 wavelength, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) one would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of setting the desired impedance of the loading branches at a desired value.
With respect to claim 5, Kato et al. fails to explicitly disclose “wherein each of the M loading branches is a transmission line whose equivalent electrical length is a 1/2 wavelength”.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to set the wavelengths of the transmission lines of 6a-6d of Kato et al. such that they have an equivalent electrical length is a 1/2 wavelength, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) one would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of setting the desired impedance of the loading branches at a desired value.
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (USPN 5,872,491) discloses, in Figs. 4 and 5, that electrical lengths of 1/4 and 1/2 wavelengths of transmission lines and/or loads (see 40 and 56 of Fig. 4) are commonly used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas J. Hiltunen whose telephone number is (571)272-5525. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at (571)270-3684. 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.
/THOMAS J. HILTUNEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights