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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 13 – 32 are currently pending in this application.
The Applicant’s arguments have been considered, for Examiner’s response please see section Response to Arguments below. Additionally, new grounds of rejections are presented in this office action.
Response to Arguments
While arguing combination of Rofougaran and Robert on pages 13 – 15 of the Remarks, and specifically motivation to combine, the Applicant states the Examiner’s statement of motivation
“…merely states the presumed result of the proposed modification - it does not address why one of skill in the art would be motivated to make the modification.
Rofougaran is silent as to any concern for manufacturing variations or environmental factors. Even more broadly, Rofougaran is silent as to any need or desire to "tune" the operating frequency of its transformer, for any reason.”
“Notably absent from this list is any mention of "tuning" the operating frequency of the transformer, by any means, for any reason. The Office has failed to articulate why one of skill in the art would be led to add frequency tuning to Rofougaran's impedance-matching transformer. Merely stating the result - it would enable frequency tuning - is a circular statement that avoids the essence of the requirement of a motivation: a showing that such modification would be desirable.”
Prior to continuing, the examiner would like to point out that MPEP Chapter 2144(I) states:
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
And MPEP Chapter 2144(I) states:
The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").
Applicant's arguments as to claim 1 concerning the individual shortcomings in the teachings of Rofougaran (e.g., as not pertaining to "tuning" the operating frequency of the transformer) are not persuasive of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in claim 1. Indeed, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teachings of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. V. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In view of the foregoing, Applicant’s contentions that there is no motivation to combine Rofougaran and Robert because Rofougaran does not pertain to "tuning" the operating frequency of the transformer are unpersuasive.
When several prior art references are combined, a claimed invention is not obvious unless a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. However, the important inquiry is whether an ordinarily skilled artisan is "able to recognize, based on her background knowledge, [a technique's] potential to improve the device and be able to apply the technique." Unwired Planet, LLC V. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Any motivation, "whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient." Outdry Techs. Corp. V. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In the instant case, the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence of a motivation for combining the teachings of Rofougaran and Robert such as tuning the operating frequency of the transformer, which is clearly stated by Robert in paragraph 0049.
The Applicant has not rebutted the Examiner's reasonable articulation of the motivation to combine the applied references with evidence or persuasive argument. Specifically, Applicant has not demonstrated the Examiner's combination of Rofougaran and Robert would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. V. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Nor has Applicant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. V. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Systems, 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
"Under the correct [obviousness] analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.' KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (italicized emphasis added); Outdry Techs. Corp. V. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed Cir. 2017) (any motivation, "whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient."). In the instant case, at the time of Applicant’s invention (effective filing date of December 10, 2019), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had access to the disclosures of Rofougaran (published May 28, 2009) and Robert (published April 11, 2019). Applicant has not shown that the references are so different in structure or function so as to establish that the references are non-analogous to Applicant’s claimed invention. See In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (similarities of function and structure carry the greatest weight when determining whether a reference is analogous to a claimed invention).
In response to Applicant’s contentions that Rofougaran is not concerned with tuning the operating frequency of the transformer, as is Robert, the courts stated that it is irrelevant that the prior art and the present invention may have different purposes. See National Steel Car, Ltd. V. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("A finding that two inventions were designed to resolve is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention different problems teaches away from another."). It is sufficient that references suggest doing what Applicant did, even when Applicant’s particular purpose was different from that of the references. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539 (CCPA 1967)). For a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the reference need not recognize the same problem solved by the Applicant. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Finally, Applicant’s contention that “[t]he Office has failed to articulate why one of skill in the art would be led to add frequency tuning to Rofougaran's impedance-matching transformer”, is not persuasive in view of the Examiner's explanation. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no evidence to support this assertion apart from mere conclusory statements. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence."); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (it is well established that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Rofougaran and Robert are not persuasive.
On pages 15 – 17 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues combination of Rofougaran/Robert and Seshita as allegedly “improper” by providing several arguments including the following:
First, the Applicant refers to Robert’s FIG 4 and FIG 6, which simply show a generic symbol for a switch that is commonly used in electric schematics, and stating that, allegedly, this is a sufficient disclosure to fill the gap that the Examiner stated exists in Rofougaran. The Applicant concludes this portion of the argument by stating the following: “The leap from a generic switch symbol to a transistor switch is well within the skill of the ordinary artesian.”
However, this Applicant’s argument is completely misplaced and, therefore, is irrelevant. The Applicant discusses switching arrangement for the capacitor bank comprising variable capacitors of Robert. It has nothing to do with the first or second sets of switches claimed by claim 13. Indeed, the transistors claimed by claim 13 and corresponding resistors are used not to control programmable capacitors, but are part of the first and second sets of switches. Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s argument, a person of ordinary skill implementing Rofougaran disclosure would not even consider FIG 4 and FIG 6 of Robert to build Rofougaran’s switching networks 235 in FIG 7 as simply irrelevant for the task.
However, going back to the Applicant’s argument and simply for the sake of discussion, the Applicant did not include in their argument how this transistor switch would operate to connect and disconnect individual branches and how to control the switch to open and close. It is quite obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that knows at least something about transistor switches that certain additional components have to be included for the transistor switch to operate as intended. You can’t just randomly connect a transistor and expect it to operate properly. And this is where the disclosure of Seshita provides a working, not a generic, schematic diagram of a switching arrangement that includes resistors connected to the gate terminals of each transistor.
Therefore, this Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Second, the Applicant states that (emphases by the Applicant)
“…by the Office's logic, one of skill in the art would be motivated to modify Rofougaran/Robert by any switching circuit known in the art. Those of skill in the electronic arts have been incorporating transistor switches into circuits since 1948, and mechanical switches since the dawn of harnessing electricity in the 1800s. There are millions of switching circuits known in the art, and by the Office's logic, Rofougaran's silence provides a motivation for one of skill in the art to modify Rofougaran/Robert by any of them. This is, of course, absurd.
The Office must "provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to make the asserted combination] with the specific teaching of Seshita. InTouch Techs., 751 F.3d at 1351. That is, the Office must show some desirability of Sheshita's particular solution to a switching circuit.”
This is not persuasive. There is no need to select “any switching circuit known in the art”, as the Applicant argues. The Examiner does not argue that there may be other solutions how to build Rofougaran’s switching networks 235 in FIG 7. However, the question is not that other solutions may be possible, the question is whether the solution proposed by the Examiner is or is not obvious, that is all.
Rofougaran in paragraphs 0045 – 0046 teaches the purpose of the switching networks 235. In particular, control signal 169 commands switching network 235 to select the particular subset of taps coupled to the antenna 175 and the subset of taps coupled to T/R module 177. In other words, each switching network 235 represents an example of SPNT (Single-Pole N-Throw) switch, where N represents the number of positions or taps the switch is capable of connecting to the single pole. Therefore, not just any switching circuit can be used to construct this type of switching network, but only those having this type of structure. Additionally, manually operated mechanical switch like the one on the wall of a room to turn on or off electric lighting would probably not do the job. Same with mechanical relays or high-voltage switches used in power plants to connect and disconnect 220 kV power lines. Vacuum tube would probably also be useless. What is needed is a high-frequency semiconductor switch having the required structure.
On the other side, Seshita in FIG 4 teaches such a switch that has SP4T (Single-Pole 4-Throw) structure as an example of a high-frequency switch circuit. As stated in paragraph 0003, this type of switch is suitable for mobile telephones. Which means there is a natural fit between the switch disclosed by Seshita and the switching network of Rofougaran. Contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner also clearly articulated synergy between the disclosures by stating the following:
“In fact, Rofougaran does not appear to teach internal structure of the switching networks 235 thus prompting a person of ordinary skill reading his disclosure to search for additional references.
In this respect, Seshita in FIG 4 with corresponding description beginning in paragraph 0053 teaches a circuit diagram of the internal structure of an SP4T (Single-Pole 4-Throw) switch as an example of the high-frequency switch circuit 2. This SP4T switch switches which one of four RF terminals RF 1 to RF 4 to be electrically connected to the common RF terminal RF_COM, depending on parallel switching control signals Con 1 to Con 4.
In other words, Seshita teaches “wherein each switch … comprises a transistor; and a resistor applied in series between a control voltage and a gate terminal of each transistor.”
Therefore, since Rofougaran does not teach internal structure of the switching networks 235, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Seshita switching structure to implement the switching networks 235 of Rofougaran simply to fill in where Rofougaran is silent to yield predictable results and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).”
Therefore, this Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Third, the Applicant states that “the specification is completely silent as to the resistors - their values, their purpose, any reason to insert them, or any benefit to be gained from them.”
The MPEP in 2125(I) is very clear (emphasis by the Examiner):
“Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).”
Since the MPEP answers this Applicant’s argument, no further explanation by the Examiner is necessary, and this Applicant’s argument is also not persuasive.
On pages 17 – 19 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the combination of Rofougaran/Robert with Seshita would produce a seemingly inoperative device. The Applicant brings up a valid point that the switch disclosed by Seshita is unsuitable to be utilized in Rofougaran.
This Applicant’s argument is found to be persuasive, therefore, the rejection in view of Seshita is withdrawn. However, a new rejection in view of Yasuda and/or Nakatsuka is presented below.
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.
Claims 13 – 19, 22 – 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090137215 (Rofougaran) in view of US 20190109612 (Robert) and further in view of one or more of (US 20060001473 (Yasuda) and/or US 20050017786 (Nakatsuka)).
Regarding claim 23, Rofougaran teaches “A wireless communication device (FIG 7 and paragraphs 0045 – 0046. Presence of the antenna and T/R module mean that it is “a wireless communication device”. Circuit shown in FIG 7 is part of the device shown in FIG 3 – 5 and described in paragraphs 0026 – 0040 disclosing a communication device 10 or 30) comprising:
an impedance transforming circuit (FIG 7: transformer 171, also shown in the sketch below with the Examiner’s annotations) comprising:
a first port and a second port (shown as numerals 1 and 2, respectively in the sketch);
a tapped transformer (paragraph 0045: transformer 171 includes a winding 254 having a plurality of taps; winding 256, magnetically coupled to winding 254, can also have a plurality of taps) comprising a first winding (winding 256) and a second winding (winding 254), wherein:
the first winding comprises a first terminal (3), a second terminal (4) and a number of taps connected at different positions on the first winding between the first and second terminals of the first winding (5); and
the second winding comprises a first terminal (6), a second terminal (7) and a number of taps connected at different positions on the second winding between the first and second terminals of the second winding (8)…”
“…a first set of switches (paragraph 0045: a plurality of taps are selected by switching network 235 to provide a port to T/R module 177) connected between the number of taps on the first winding (5) and a terminal of the first port (1)…”
“…a second set of switches (paragraph 0045: a switching network 235 that couples the winding 254 to a port coupled to antenna 175 via a selected proper subset of the plurality of first taps) connected between the number of taps on the second winding (8) and a terminal of the second port (2)…”
“…wherein the circuit is configured to transform impedance between a first circuit connected to the first port and a second circuit connected to the second port by selectively connecting the first circuit to one of the taps on the first winding via the first set of switches and selectively connecting the second circuit to one of the taps on the second windings via the second set of switches (paragraph 0046: control signal 169 commands switching network 235 to select the particular subset of taps coupled to the antenna 175 and the subset of taps coupled to T/R module 177 to vary the impedance, transfer function, and other properties of the transformer 171, control the load on radio transmitter front-end 150 and the impedance seen by RF front-end 140).”
PNG
media_image1.png
1196
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sketch
Rofougaran does not disclose presence of “a first programmable capacitor connected between the first and second terminals of the first winding” and “a second programmable capacitor connected between the first and second terminals of the second winding.”
Robert in FIG 3 with corresponding description also teaches transformer 10 to match transmitter/receiver with antenna 38. Paragraph 0049 states that the transceiver includes a number of capacitor banks 32. These capacitor banks 32 may be coupled to the windings 12, 14, 16 of the transformer 10 for tuning an operating frequency of the transformer.
In other words, Robert teaches “a first programmable capacitor (32 in FIG 3) connected between the first and second terminals of the first winding (winding 14 on the right side of the transformer 10 shown in FIG 3)” and “a second programmable capacitor (32 in FIG 3) connected between the first and second terminals of the second winding (winding 12 on the left side of the transformer 10 shown in FIG 3).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Robert variable capacitor banks connected across each of the transformer windings, in the system of Rofougaran. Doing so would have allowed to tune the operating frequency of the transformer (see Robert, paragraph 0049).
Rofougaran does not teach “wherein each switch in the first set of switches comprises a transistor”; “wherein each switch in the second set of switches comprises a transistor; and a resistor applied in series between a control voltage and a gate terminal of each transistor.” In fact, Rofougaran does not appear to teach internal structure of the switching networks 235 thus prompting a person of ordinary skill reading his disclosure to search for additional references.
In this respect, Yasuda in FIG 13 with corresponding description as well as its modification in FIG 11 also with corresponding description teaches a circuit diagram of the internal structure of an SP3T (Single-Pole 3-Throw) switch. This SP3T switch switches one of three RF terminals RF2 to RF4 to be electrically connected to the common RF terminal RF1, depending on switching control signals CTL1 to CTL3. The circuit includes resistors R1 – R3.
Similarly, Nakatsuka at least in FIG 1 with corresponding description teaches a circuit diagram of the internal structure of an SP4T (Single-Pole 4-Throw) switch. This SP4T switch switches one of four RF terminals 502 – 505 to be electrically connected to the common RF terminal 501, depending on switching control signals 602 – 605. The circuit includes resistors 201 – 216.
In other words, Yasuda and/or Nakatsuka teach “wherein each switch … comprises a transistor; and a resistor applied in series between a control voltage and a gate terminal of each transistor.”
Therefore, since Rofougaran does not teach internal structure of the switching networks 235, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Yasuda or Nakatsuka switching structure to implement the switching networks 235 of Rofougaran simply to fill in where Rofougaran is silent to yield predictable results and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Additional explanations may be found in section Response to Arguments above which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 23 because claim 13 has similar but broader limitations.
Regarding claims 14 and 24, Rofougaran in combination with Robert teaches or fairly suggests “further configured to select capacitances of the first and second programmable capacitors (Robert, paragraph 0049: FIG. 4 shows an example of a capacitor bank 32. The capacitor bank 32 includes a plurality of capacitors 60 arranged in parallel. Each capacitor 60 may be connected in series with a respective switch 62. By selectively opening and closing one or more of the switches 62, the capacitance added to the circuit by the capacitor back 32 may be varied. The switches 62 may be programmable.).”
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Rofougaran in combination with Robert teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the circuit is configured as a single-ended antenna impedance tuner, where both the first and second ports are single-ended ports (Rofougaran, paragraph 0046: Transformer 171 can be single-sided to single-sided. The port to the antenna 175 and the port to T/R module 177 can be unbalanced.), wherein:
one of the first and second terminals on the first winding and one of the first and second terminals on the second winding are connected to signal ground (although not disclosed by Rofougaran, this is disclosed by Robert in FIG 3 and paragraph 0048: a first terminal 2A/2B of the input 2 is coupled to an antenna, while the other terminal 2B/2A is coupled to ground 42. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize connection of one of the terminals shown on the left side of Rofougaran’s FIG 7 leading to antenna 175 to ground, as disclosed by Robert as is normally done in RF circuits. Doing so would have fixed one of the sides of the unbalanced secondary winding 254 to the ground potential. Further, although not explicitly disclosed with respect to similar connection to the ground of the T/R module 175, as stated above, transformer 171 can be single-sided to single-sided. The port to the antenna 175 and the port to T/R module 177 can be unbalanced. The Examiner takes an official notice that it is well known and quite common in the industry to connect one terminal of single-sided unbalanced circuits to the ground. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the case when the transformer 171 is single-sided to single-sided and the circuit of T/R module 177 is unbalanced, to connect one of the terminals to the ground. Doing so would have fixed one of the sides of the unbalanced primary winding 256 to the ground potential.); and
the first port is to be connected to a transceiver with a single-ended port (Rofougaran, paragraph 0046: Transformer 171 can be single-sided to single-sided; port 1 as shown in the sketch above is connected to the transmitter/receiver 177) and the second port is to be connected to a single-ended antenna port (Rofougaran, paragraph 0046: Transformer 171 can be single-sided to single-sided; port 2 as shown in the sketch above is connected to the antenna 175).”
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Rofougaran in combination with Robert teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the circuit is configured as a differential to single-ended impedance tuner, where the first port is a differential port and the second port is a single-ended port (Rofougaran, paragraph 0046: Transformer 171 can be single-sided to differential. The port to the antenna 175 and the port to T/R module 177 can be balanced or unbalanced. Therefore, claimed configuration is within the scope of Rofougaran’s disclosure when the port to the antenna 175 (port 2 in the sketch above) is unbalanced and the port to T/R module 177 (port 1 in the sketch above) is balanced and/or differential), and
wherein: the tapped transformer further comprises a third winding with a first terminal, a second terminal and a number of taps and connected in series with the first winding; the differential to single-ended impedance tuner further comprises a third set of switches and a third programmable capacitor connected in shunt with the third winding; and the taps on the first and third windings are connected to the differential port by the first set of switches and third set of switches, respectively (although not disclosed by Rofougaran, this is suggested by Robert, FIG 3 by showing the winding 14 having center tap 44 connected to the common mode voltage - see Robert, paragraph 0052. In fact, the upper portion of the winding 14 is duplicated, or mirrored, to result in the lower portion of the winding 14 connected in series with the upper portion of the winding 14 thus providing differential or balanced output.
Therefore, in view of the disclosures of Rofougaran and Robert, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application, for the case of when the T/R module 177 shown in FIG 7 of Rofougaran is of balanced configuration, to duplicate/mirror the winding 256 in FIG 7 of Rofougaran with all the taps and the corresponding side of the switching network 235 together with variable capacitor (disclosed by Robert as explained in the rejection of claim 23 above) and connect it in series with the original winding 256 to result in the disclosed by Rofougaran differential to single-sided configuration. Doing so would have simply filled in where Rofougaran discloses general idea of differential or balanced configuration without providing sufficient details.).”
Regarding claims 17 and 27, Rofougaran in combination with Robert teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the first programmable capacitor and the third programmable capacitor are configured as one programmable capacitor and are connected between the first terminal of the first winding and the first terminal of the third winding (Robert, FIG 3 shows capacitor 32 connected across corresponding winding 14 which has two parts connected in series for differential/balanced configuration, as the claim requires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that when Rofougaran’s transformer 171 is used for differential to single ended transformation, and the winding on the differential side comprises two windings connected in series, as explained in the parent claim 16 by duplicating/mirroring the primary winding 256 together with all connected parts including variable capacitor so that each portion of the resultant winding for the differential input has its own variable capacitor (i.e. there would be two variable capacitors connected on the input side of the transformer 171, each capacitor connected to its own portion of the duplicated/mirrored winding 256), to combine these two variable capacitors into a single variable capacitor to be connected across the entirety of the primary winding, as disclosed in FIG 3 of Robert with respect to capacitor 32 connected across the entirety of the winding 14, and not just across individual portions of the winding. Doing so would have allowed to save space and cost by using only a single variable capacitor rather than two variable capacitors).”
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Rofougaran in combination with Robert teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the circuit is configured as a single-ended to differential impedance tuner, where the first port is a single-ended port and the second port is a differential port (Rofougaran, paragraph 0046: Transformer 171 can be single-sided to differential. The port to the antenna 175 and the port to T/R module 177 can be balanced or unbalanced. Therefore, claimed configuration is within the scope of Rofougaran’s disclosure when the port to the antenna 175 (port 2 in the sketch above) is balanced and/or differential and the port to T/R module 177 (port 1 in the sketch above) is unbalanced), and
wherein: the tapped transformer further comprises a third winding with a first terminal, a second terminal and a number of taps and connected in series with the second winding; the single-ended to differential impedance tuner further comprises a third set of switches and a third programmable capacitor connected in shunt with the third winding; and the taps on the second and third windings are connected to the differential port by the second set of switches and third set of switches respectively (although not disclosed by Rofougaran, this is suggested by Robert, FIG 3 by showing the winding 14 having center tap 44 connected to the common mode voltage - see Robert, paragraph 0052. In fact, the upper portion of the winding 14 is duplicated, or mirrored, to result in the lower portion of the winding 14 connected in series with the upper portion of the winding 14 thus providing differential or balanced output.
Therefore, in view of the disclosures of Rofougaran and Robert, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application, for the case of when the antenna 175 shown in FIG 7 of Rofougaran is of balanced configuration, to duplicate the winding 254 in FIG 7 of Rofougaran with all the taps and the corresponding side of the switching network 235 together with variable capacitor (disclosed by Robert as explained in the rejection of claim 23 above) and connect it in series with the original winding 254 to result in the disclosed by Rofougaran single-sided to differential configuration specifically when the antenna is of balanced configuration. Doing so would have simply filled in where Rofougaran discloses general idea of differential or balanced configuration without providing sufficient details.).”
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Rofougaran in combination with Robert teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the second programmable capacitor and the third programmable capacitor are configured as one programmable capacitor and are connected between the first terminal of the second winding and the first terminal of the third winding (Robert, FIG 3 shows capacitor 32 connected across corresponding winding 14 which has two parts connected in series for differential/balanced configuration, as the claim requires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that when Rofougaran’s transformer 171 is used for single ended to differential transformation, and the winding on the differential side comprises two windings connected in series, as explained in the parent claim 18 by duplicating/mirroring the secondary winding 254 together with all connected parts including variable capacitor so that each portion of the resultant winding for the differential output has its own variable capacitor (i.e. there would be two variable capacitors connected on the output side of the transformer 171, each capacitor connected to its own portion of the duplicated/mirrored winding 254), to combine these two variable capacitors into a single variable capacitor to be connected across the entirety of the secondary winding, as disclosed in FIG 3 of Robert with respect to capacitor 32 connected across the entirety of the winding 14, and not just across individual portions of the winding. Doing so would have allowed to save space and cost by using only a single variable capacitor rather than two variable capacitors).”
Regarding claim 22, Rofougaran teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the circuit is fully integrated on a chip (paragraph 0045: transformer 171 is an on-chip or in-package transformer that can be implemented on RF integrated circuit 50 or 70. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to further integrate in the same chip or package other components as well including the switching networks shown in FIG 7 as well as variable capacitors disclosed by Robert and connected to the transformer. Doing so would have allowed to miniaturize the whole assembly without the need for any external components).”
Regarding claim 32, Rofougaran teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the wireless communication device is a user equipment (communication device 10/30 that includes the structure of FIG 7 can be a mobile phone such as a cellular telephone, a personal digital assistant, game console, personal computer, laptop computer, or other device that performs one or more functions that include communication of voice and/or data – see paragraph 0022).”
Claims 20, 21, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090137215 (Rofougaran) in view of US 20190109612 (Robert) and in view of one or more of (US 20060001473 (Yasuda) and/or US 20050017786 (Nakatsuka)) as applied to claims 13 and 23 above, and further in view of US 20030171109 (Ballweber).
Regarding claims 20 and 30, Rofougaran in combination with Robert teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the circuit is configured as a differential impedance tuner, where both the first and second ports are differential ports (Rofougaran, paragraph 0046: Transformer 171 can be single-sided to single-sided or single-sided to differential. The port to the antenna 175 and the port to T/R module 177 can be balanced or unbalanced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to further extend the teaching of Rofougaran to an additional case when the transformer is differential to differential. Doing so would have simply added an additional application where this disclosed transformer may be used when both input and output are differential.)…”
Rofougaran in combination with Robert do not provide any schematic diagrams for the differential to differential impedance transformer and thus do not disclose “the tapped transformer further comprises: a third winding with a number of taps and connected in series with the first winding; and a fourth winding with a number of taps and connected in series with the second winding; the differential impedance tuner further comprises a third set of switches, a fourth set of switches, a third programmable capacitor connected in shunt with the third winding, and a fourth programmable capacitor connected in shunt with the fourth winding; and wherein the taps on the first and third windings are connected to the first differential port by the first set of switches and third set of switches, respectively, and the taps on the second and fourth windings are connected to the second differential port by the second set of switches and fourth set of switches, respectively.”
Ballweber in FIG 1 and 2 with corresponding description in paragraph 0024 teaches integrated coupling transformer 117 having a primary winding 116 for coupling to a source or signal and a secondary winding 118 for coupling to a load. Paragraph 0023 states that this arrangement present a balanced differential load to a differential signal provided by a signal source. Paragraph 0028 teaches that the integrated coupling transformer 117 includes a center tap 241 on the primary winding and a center tap 243 on the secondary winding, where these center taps can facilitate biasing by providing a path for a DC bias current. As may be seen, primary winding consists of two sub windings connected in series at the center tap 241, just as the secondary winding consists of two sub windings connected in series at the center tap 243. In other words, upper sub-winding on each of the primary and secondary windings is duplicated, or mirrored to create differential balanced input/output.
Therefore, in view of the disclosures of Rofougaran, Robert and Ballweber, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application, for the case when both the antenna 175 and the T/R module 177 shown in FIG 7 of Rofougaran are of differential balanced configuration, to duplicate/mirror each windings (254 and 256 in FIG 7 of Rofougaran) with all the taps and the corresponding side of the switching network 235 together with variable capacitors (disclosed by Robert as explained in the rejection of claim 23 above) and connect them in series with the original winding 254 or 256, respectively, to result in the differential to differential configuration specifically for the explicitly disclosed Rofougaran case when both the antenna and T/R module are of balanced configuration. Doing so would have expanded the teaching of Rofougaran for an additional application where this disclosed transformer may be used when both input and output are differential.
When Rofougaran’s transformer combined with Robert’s variable capacitors is modified according to the explanation presented above, the resulting structure would meet the limitations of instant claims.
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Rofougaran in combination with Robert and Ballweber teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the first programmable capacitor and the third programmable capacitor are configured as one programmable capacitor and are connected between the first terminal of the first winding and the first terminal of the third winding, and wherein the second programmable capacitor and the fourth programmable capacitor are configured as one programmable capacitor and are connected between the first terminal of the second winding and the first terminal of the fourth winding (indeed, when the device of Rofougaran is modified to be differential to differential transformation by essentially duplicating/mirroring each of the windings 254 and 256 shown in FIG 7 of Rofougaran, together with associated switching networks and Robert’s variable capacitors, this would have resulted in four variable capacitors, each connected across respective portion of the primary 256 or secondary 254 windings of transformer 171 of Rofougaran. However, Robert in FIG 3 shows a capacitor 32 connected across corresponding windings 14 and 16, each of the windings has two parts connected in series for differential/balanced configuration. In other words this configuration is the same as recited by the claim “wherein the first programmable capacitor and the third programmable capacitor are configured as one programmable capacitor and are connected between the first terminal of the first winding and the first terminal of the third winding” or “the second programmable capacitor and the fourth programmable capacitor are configured as one programmable capacitor and are connected between the first terminal of the second winding and the first terminal of the fourth winding”. Similarly, Ballweber in FIG 1 also shows variable capacitor network 119 connected across the winding 116 configured for differential/balanced operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the respective two variable capacitors, that would otherwise be connected to each individual portion of primary or secondary winding, into a combined variable capacitor to be connected across the entirety of the primary winding and another combined variable capacitor to be connected across the entirety of the secondary winding, as disclosed in FIG 3 of Robert and/or FIG 1 of Ballweber. Doing so would have allowed to save space and cost by using only a single variable capacitor per entirety of the primary or secondary winding configured for differential/balanced operation, rather than two variable capacitors for each side of the transformer).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648