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) 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang)(US 2024/0250701) in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) (US 2008/0102757).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a wireless access point (AP)(P[0066]), comprising: a first antenna array; a second antenna array; a plurality of diplexers; a first radio-frequency integrated circuit (RFIC) configured to operate at a first frequency band comprising a first plurality of sub-bands; and a second RFIC configured to operate at a second frequency band comprising a second plurality of sub-bands,
a first filter coupled between the first RFIC and a first front-end-module (FEM) providing power amplification; and a second filter coupled between the second RFIC and a second FEM providing power amplification P[0062], first filter and second filter; also Figs. 2-6).
wherein the first RFIC and the second RFIC are both coupled to the first antenna array and the second antenna array, and wherein adjacent portions of the first plurality of sub-bands and the second plurality of sub-bands are assigned to different antenna arrays of the first and second antenna arrays using the plurality of diplexers(Fig. 1; 5GHz and 6GHz; Diplexers and FEMs; RF transceivers; antennas; also Figs 1B and 2 for filter; Fig. 1A teaches plurality of radio frequency FEMs; and Fig. 1B or Fig. 2 teaches the radio frequency FEM with amplifier and filter to be used in the modules FEM in Fig. 1A).
Wang did not teach specifically a pre-filter coupled between the RFIC and a front-end-module (FEM) providing power amplification wherein the first pre-filter is configured to reduce a noise floor of out-of-subband signals from the RFIC to a thermal noise floor before power amplification by the FEM.
However, Kim teaches in an analogous art a pre-filter coupled between the RFIC and a front-end-module (FEM) providing power amplification wherein the first pre-filter is configured to reduce a noise floor of out-of-subband signals from the RFIC to a thermal noise floor before power amplification by the FEM(abstractl Fig. 2; PA power amplifier; item 215 signal processor (RFIC); item 219 state analyzer(pre-filter); duplexer with BPF as FEM; Fig. 4, state analyzer with thermal noise calculator).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to have a pre-filter coupled between the f RFIC and a front-end-module (FEM) providing power amplification wherein the first pre-filter is configured to reduce a noise floor of out-of-subband signals from the RFIC to a thermal noise floor before power amplification by the FEM in order to have improved adaptability.
Regarding claim2, Wang teaches the wireless AP of claim 1, wherein the first frequency band comprises a 5GHz band and the second frequency band comprises a 6GHz frequency band(Fig. 1; also P[0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the wireless AP of claim 2, wherein the adjacent portions of the first plurality of sub-bands and the second plurality of sub-bands comprise a highest sub-band for the 5GHz band and a lowest sub-band for the 6GHz frequency band(P[0067]; coexistence interference problem).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the wireless AP of claim 4, wherein the first filter and the second filter each comprise band-pass filters(P[0062], band-pass filter).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches a 8. The wireless AP of claim 1, further comprising a third RFIC and a fourth RFIC, wherein the third RFIC and the fourth RFIC are both configured to use at least one of the first and second antenna arrays(Fig. 9B).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches a third FEM coupled to the third RFIC, the third FEM configured to provide power amplification for the third RFIC; and a fourth FEM coupled to the third RFIC, the fourth FEM configured to provide power amplification for the fourth RFIC (Figs. 1-12; Fig. 1B PA can be applicable to each one of the FEM in Fig. 1A).
Claims 11-12, 15-16, 19-20 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1, 2+3, 1, 2+3, 8-9 respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches the method, wherein each of the respective first RFIC, second RFIC, third RFIC, and fourth RFIC is coupled to at least one of four FEMs providing power amplification(Figs. 1A, 1B and 2).
Claim(s) 6-7, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang)(US 2024/0250701) in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) (US 2008/0102757) and Hori et al. (hereinafter Hori) (US 2004/0100210).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Kim teaches all the particulars of the claim except amplify power below a saturated output power (Psat) level. However, Hori teaches in an analog art amplify power below a saturated output power (Psat) level(P[0057], power amplifier, saturation distortion; below 10dB). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to have the wireless AP of Wang, wherein the first FEM and the second FEM are each configured to amplify power below a saturated output power (Psat) level in order to have reduced distortion.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Kim teaches the wireless AP of claim 6, wherein the first FEM and the second FEM are each configured to amplify power approximately 10dB below the Psat level(P[0057]).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the antenna system, wherein the first filter and the second filter each comprise band-pass filters, and wherein the first FEM and the second FEM are each configured to amplify power (P[0062], band-pass filter; also Figs. 1-9). Wang did not teach specifically amplify power below a saturated output power (Psat) level. However, Hori teaches in an analog art amplify power below a saturated output power (Psat) level(P[0057], power amplifier, saturation distortion; below 10dB). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in order to have the wireless AP of Wang, wherein the first FEM and the second FEM are each configured to amplify power below a saturated output power (Psat) level in order to have reduced distortion.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang)(US 2024/0250701) in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) (US 2008/0102757) and Lehtola (US 2022/0385328).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Kim teaches all the particulars of the claim except the wireless AP of claim 1, wherein the plurality of diplexers each comprise a plurality of bulk acoustic wave (BAW) band-pass filters. However, Lehtola teaches in an analog art wherein the plurality of diplexers each comprise a plurality of bulk acoustic wave (BAW) band-pass filters(P[0134], acoustic wave filter). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention wherein the plurality of diplexers each comprise a plurality of bulk acoustic wave (BAW) band-pass filters in order to have improved audio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim fails to teach or suggest that state analyzer 219 performs RF filtering, attenuates out-of-subband emissions, reduces a noise floor of RF signals, or otherwise functions as a pre-filter.
In response examiner respectfully submits te following: “A digital filter is indeed fundamentally an input–output system — it takes a sequence of digital numbers (the input signal) and produces another sequence of digital numbers (the output signal) after applying a set of mathematical operations. This is why it can be described as a transformation from one signal to another, much like a device that processes data from one form to another”.
In view of that Kim’s analyzer can be considered as pre-filter.
Applicant argues that Kim still fails to teach that the state analyzer 219 is "coupled between the first RFIC and a first front-end-module (FEM) providing power amplification" as recited in Applicant's claims.
Examiner respectfully submits that “Kim teaches state analyzer 219 is coupled between (item 215 modem (RFIC)) and the FEM (BPF diplexer combination) and thus providing power amplification(PA in Fig. 2) and State analyzer is also processing signal positioned between the PA and the modem”.
Kim does not teach or suggest that the state analyzer 219 is configured to "reduce a noise floor of out-of-subband signals from the first RFIC to a thermal noise floor before power amplification by the first FEM" as recited in Applicant's claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim teaches in P[0056], the state analyzer helps in reducing the load on the modem due to thermal noise.
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 MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY MANOHARAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5515. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Alison T Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/MUTHUSWAMY G MANOHARAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights