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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 2, 6-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fujihira (Fig. 13); 5,422,593] in view of [Limberg (Fig. 8); 5,386,200].
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 20, Fujihira discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a first power switch (11) of a depletion type being configured to receive an input signal (61) and provide an amplified output signal (output signal of 11) to an output connection (21) configured to be coupled to a load (load of Fig. 13), and a second power switch (12) and wherein the second power switch (12) being configured to improve a linearity of the power amplifier (Fig. 13) and being coupled to the output connection (21). As described above, Fujihira discloses all the limitations in the claims except for that the second power switch being an enhancement type. Limberg discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a second power switch (Q54) which is an enhancement type. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to have replaced the depletion type transistor with the enhancement type transistor of the amplifier circuit of Fujihira, such as taught by Limberg (Fig. 8) in order to provide the advantageous benefit of stabilizing the variation of the gain of the amplifier circuit. Also, it does not require a special skill to replace a depletion type transistor with an enhancement type transistor. Also, it (replacing a depletion type transistor with an enhancement type transistor) does not produce an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 2, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 6, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 7, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 8, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claims 9 and 21, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 10, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 11, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 12, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 14, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 17, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 18, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Fujihira (Fig. 13); 5,422,593] in view of [Limberg (Fig. 8); 5,386,200] in further view of [Kanno et al; 8,026,570].
Regarding claim 4, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Regarding claim 5, exactly same as the previous office action dated 8/18/25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 4-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Henry Choe whose telephone number is (571)272-1760. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 AM- 6:00 PM EST. 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/interview practice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrea J Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on (571)272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/HENRY CHOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Henry Choe whose telephone number is (571)272-1760. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 AM- 6:00 PM EST. 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/interview practice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrea J Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on (571)272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/HENRY CHOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843