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.
Claim1, 3, 5-9 and 38 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkin (2020/0244294).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 9, Itkin discloses a circuit for mixer second-order input intercept point (IIP2) calibration (See fig. 4 and par [0028]), the circuit comprising: a first receive chain comprising a first mixer {406}; and a single tone generator 206 having an output coupled to an input of the first mixer and configured to generate a calibration signal having a single tone (i.e. SIN signal or COS signal) (See fig. 4 and par [0047]). However, Itkin does not explicitly mention that the single tone is a single baseband tone (i.e. having a frequency no greater than 50MHz, 10MHz or 5MHz as disclosed in the specification, par [0068]) and the first mixer is configured to generate a differential tone when the single baseband tone as the calibration signal is applied to the input of the first mixer. Since Itkin does disclose that the tone generator 206 may adjust the signal to generate a calibration signal with a defined amplitude at a given frequency (See par [0047]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the tone generator for generating single baseband tone (i.e. single tone having a frequency no greater than 50MHz, 10MHz or 5MHz), for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various tones at various frequency in order to accommodate the desired goals. Further, since, Official Notice taken by the examiner, balanced mixer (i.e. single-balanced mixer or double-balanced mixer) configured to generate a differential tone when input signal is applied to the input of the balanced mixer is well known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize balanced mixer for the system, disclosed by Itkin, such that the mixer generates a differential tone when the single baseband tone as the calibration signal is applied to the input of the mixer, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various types of mixers in order to accommodate the design intention.
Regarding claim 3, Itkin discloses as cited in claim 1. Itkin further discloses the first receive chain further comprises a first amplifier 402 having an output coupled to the input of the first mixer and to the output of the single tone generator (See fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Itkin discloses as cited in claim 3. Itkin further discloses a second receive chain comprising the first amplifier 402 and a second mixer {408}, wherein an input of the second mixer is coupled to the output of the first amplifier and to the output of the single tone generator (See fig. 4).
Regarding claims 7-8, Itkin discloses as cited in claim 1. However, Itkin does not explicitly mention that the single tone generator is configured to generate a rail-to-rail square wave having a fundamental frequency as the single baseband tone (no greater than 5MHz) for the calibration signal, wherein the single tone generator comprises a frequency divider. Since Itkin does suggest that the single tone generator is capable of generating signal(s) of various waveforms with defined amplitude or amplitudes at a given frequency or frequencies (See par [0047]) and Official Notice taken by the examiner that rail-to-rail square wave or signal generator comprising divider and/or multiplier is known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the single tone generator, as disclosed by Itkin, to generate a rail-to-rail square wave having a frequency (no greater than 5MHz for example) as the calibration signal, wherein the single tone generator comprises a frequency divider, for the advantage of generating a desired test/calibration signal in accordance with the design intention.
Claim 38 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkin (2020/0244294) in view of Maeda (8,411,730).
Regarding claim 2, Itkin discloses as cited in claim 1. However, Itkin does not explicitly mention the circuit is an integrated circuit (IC). Since Maeda discloses a similar circuit, wherein the circuit is an integrated circuit (IC) and wherein the IC includes the first receive chain and the single tone generator (See figs. 2, 4); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the circuit as an IC, for the advantage of allowing for smaller, lighter, and more compact electronic devices.
Regarding claim 4, Itkin discloses as cited in claim 1. However, Itkin does not explicitly mention the first receive chain further comprises a second amplifier having an input coupled to an output of the first mixer. Since the use of amplifier {7, 8} after a mixer stage is known in the art as shown by Maeda (See figs. 2-4); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize such amplifier(s) for the advantage of signal conditioning.
Claim 10-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkin (2020/0244294) in view of Fu (9,337,940).
Regarding claim 10, Itkin discloses as cited in claim 1. Itkin further discloses at least one antenna coupled to an input of the first receive chain; an analog-to-digital converter coupled to an output of the first receive chain; and a processor having an input coupled to an output of the analog-to-digital converter. However, Itkin does not explicitly mention that the processor is configured to receive a representation of the differential tone to control adjustment of the first mixer to minimize a power of the representation of the differential tone. Since Itkin does suggest that the mixer can be adjusted to reduce or eliminate impairment caused by the mixer (See fig. 4 and par [0033-0037]) and Fu teaches a similar circuit, wherein the processor is configured to receive a representation of the output tone to control adjustment of the mixer to minimize a power of the representation of the output tone in order to minimize impairment caused by the mixer during a calibration process (See figs. 3, 4A, 4B and col. 5 line 38 to col. 6 line 22); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teaching of Fu in adjusting the mixer, for the advantage of minimizing impairment caused by the mixer such as second-order intermodulation distortion.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Itkin & Fu disclose as cited in claim 11. Fu further discloses testing the adjustment of the mixer, wherein the testing comprises: applying a test signal comprising a single radio frequency (RF) tone to the input of the mixer and determining whether a second-order intermodulation distortion (IMD2) performance with the single RF tone meets a predefined specification (i.e. minimizing a second-order intermodulation distortion) (See figs. 4A, steps 220-232 and col. 5 line 38 to col. 6 line 22).
Regarding claims 14-15, Itkin & Fu disclose as cited in claim 11. However, they do not explicitly mention that the single tone generator is configured to generate a rail-to-rail square wave having a fundamental frequency as the single baseband tone (no greater than 5MHz) for the calibration signal. Since Itkin does suggest that the single tone generator is capable of generating signal(s) of various waveforms with defined amplitude or amplitudes at a given frequency or frequencies (See par [0047]) and Official Notice taken by the examiner that rail-to-rail square wave (i.e. periodic waveform) is known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the single tone generator, as disclosed by Itkin, to generate a rail-to-rail square wave having a fundamental frequency as the single baseband tone (no greater than 5MHz) for the calibration signal, for the advantage of generating a desired test/calibration signal in accordance with the design intention.
Regarding claim 16, Itkin & Fu disclose as cited in claim 11. Fu further discloses adjusting the mixer comprises adjusting at least one gate bias voltage of at least one transistor in the mixer (See col. 6lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 17, Itkin & Fu disclose as cited in claim 11. Fu further discloses adjusting the mixer comprises adjusting the mixer to have no significant feedthrough (i.e. crossover) of the single baseband tone at the output of the mixer (See fig. 4A, steps 20-232).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkin (2020/0244294) in view of Fu (9,337,940) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Maeda (8,411,730).
Regarding claim 12, Itkin & Fu disclose as cited in claim 11. However, they do not explicitly mention that the circuit is an integrated circuit (IC). Since Maeda discloses a similar circuit, wherein the circuit is an integrated circuit (IC) and wherein the IC includes the first receive chain and the single tone generator (See figs. 2, 4); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the circuit as an IC, for the advantage of allowing for smaller, lighter, and more compact electronic devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648