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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of claim 17, there is a comma (,) which should be a period (.). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent #9,054,648) in view of Thompson (US Patent #6,043,845).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a blocker signal removal device (See abstract; Col 3, lines 20-34…. a wideband active balun LNA topology with narrow-band filtering and noise cancelling), comprising: a balun low-noise amplifier having a single input and a differential output (See abstract…. a wideband active balun LNA topology with narrow-band filtering and noise cancelling. The amplifier includes three transconductance stages, a feedback network, and a load. The first and second transconductance stages are connected in parallel to receive the input signal. The differential output of the first transconductance stage is fed back to voltage input through a differential-to-single-end-end feedback network); and
a filter circuit coupled to the balun low-noise amplifier (See abstract…. a wideband active balun LNA topology with narrow-band filtering and noise cancelling), but does not specifically teach filter configured to remove only an in-band signal of a plurality of reception signals, wherein the balun low-noise amplifier is configured to output substantially only the in-band signal on the differential output according to an operation with the filter circuit.
However, in related art, Thompson teaches filter configured to remove only an in-band signal of a plurality of reception signals, wherein the balun low-noise amplifier is configured to output substantially only the in-band signal on the differential output according to an operation with the filter circuit (Col 3, lines 18-30…... Referring to FIG. 1, the amplifier 120 amplifies the input composite signal 111 and passes the amplified signal 121 to the low pass filter 124. The low pass filter 124 performs an anti-aliasing operation on the amplified signal 121 in which high frequency components that might be demodulated as in-band signals are removed from the signal 121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Thompson’s teaching about filter configured to remove only an in-band signal of a plurality of reception signals, wherein the balun low-noise amplifier is configured to output substantially only the in-band signal on the differential output according to an operation with the filter circuit with Xu’s invention in order to cancel noise in received signals.
Regarding claim 16, Xu teaches a method of removing blocker signals (See abstract; Col 3, lines 20-34…. a wideband active balun LNA topology with narrow-band filtering and noise cancelling), comprising: receiving RF signals in an amplifier having a single input and differential output (See abstract…. a wideband active balun LNA topology with narrow-band filtering and noise cancelling. The amplifier includes three transconductance stages, a feedback network, and a load. The first and second transconductance stages are connected in parallel to receive the input signal. The differential output of the first transconductance stage is fed back to voltage input through a differential-to-single-end-end feedback network), but does not specifically teach removing only an in-band signal in the RF signals using a filter circuit; and outputting only the in-band signal by canceling out remaining ones of the RF signals using filtered signals from the filter circuit.
However, in related art, Thompson teaches removing only an in-band signal in the RF signals using a filter circuit; and outputting only the in-band signal by canceling out remaining ones of the RF signals using filtered signals from the filter circuit (Col 3, lines 18-30…... Referring to FIG. 1, the amplifier 120 amplifies the input composite signal 111 and passes the amplified signal 121 to the low pass filter 124. The low pass filter 124 performs an anti-aliasing operation on the amplified signal 121 in which high frequency components that might be demodulated as in-band signals are removed from the signal 121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Thompson’s teaching about removing only an in-band signal in the RF signals using a filter circuit; and outputting only the in-band signal by canceling out remaining ones of the RF signals using filtered signals from the filter circuit with Xu’s invention in order to cancel noise in received signals.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent #9,054,648) in view of Thompson (US Patent #6,043,845), and further in view of Sassler et al. (US 2021/0297064).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Xu and Thompson fail to teach the blocker signal removal device of claim 1, wherein the filter circuit comprises a band reject filter (BRF).
However, in related art, Sassler teaches the blocker signal removal device of claim 1, wherein the filter circuit comprises a band reject filter (BRF) (Paragraph 0102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Sassler’s teaching about wherein the filter circuit comprises a band reject filter (BRF) with Xu’s and Thompson’s invention in order to minimize the influence of the noise having with the frequency band.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent #9,054,648) in view of Thompson (US Patent #6,043,845), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2007/0001768).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Xu and Thompson fail to teach the blocker signal removal device of claim 1, wherein the balun low-noise amplifier comprises: a first cascade amplifier comprising a first common source transistor and a first common gate transistor; and a second cascade amplifier comprising a second common source transistor and a second common gate transistor.
However, in related art, Kim teaches the blocker signal removal device of claim 1, wherein the balun low-noise amplifier comprises: a first cascade amplifier comprising a first common source transistor and a first common gate transistor; and a second cascade amplifier comprising a second common source transistor and a second common gate transistor (Paragraphs 0014 and 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Kim’s teaching about wherein the balun low-noise amplifier comprises: a first cascade amplifier comprising a first common source transistor and a first common gate transistor; and a second cascade amplifier comprising a second common source transistor and a second common gate transistor with Xu’s and Thompson’s invention in order to minimize the influence of the noise having with the frequency band.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent #9,054,648) in view of Thompson (US Patent #6,043,845) in view of Kim et al. (US 2007/0001768), and further in view of Komurasaki et al. (US 2004/0046608).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xu, Thompson, and Kim fail to teach the blocker signal removal device of claim 3, wherein the first common gate transistor and the second common gate transistor have identical amplification magnitudes.
However, in related art, Komurasaki teaches the blocker signal removal device of claim 3, wherein the first common gate transistor and the second common gate transistor have identical amplification magnitudes (See abstract; Paragraph 0043….. an amplification circuit including first and second MOS transistors identical in characteristics. That means the first common gate and second common gate have identical amplification magnitudes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Komurasaki’s teaching about wherein the first common gate transistor and the second common gate transistor have identical amplification magnitudes with Xu’s, Thompson’s, and Kim’s invention in order to provide matching and/or to provide filtering so that undesired signal components (e.g., noise, harmonics) are reduced.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent #9,054,648) in view of Thompson (US Patent #6,043,845) in view of Kim et al. (US 2007/0001768), and further in view of Su et al. (US 2021/0211148).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Xu, Thompson, and Kim fail to teach the blocker signal removal device of claim 3, wherein the first common source transistor to the second common gate transistor comprise MOSFET elements.
However, in related art, Su teaches the blocker signal removal device of claim 3, wherein the first common source transistor to the second common gate transistor comprise MOSFET elements (Paragraphs 0079, 0088, 0097, 0105, and 0113). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Su’s teaching about wherein the first common source transistor to the second common gate transistor comprise MOSFET elements with Xu’s, Thompson’s, and Kim’s invention in order to obtain a usable output current from the circuit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent #9,054,648) in view of Thompson (US Patent #6,043,845) in view of Kim et al. (US 2007/0001768) in view of Abidin et al. (US Patent #6,686,794), and further in view of Bajaj et al. (US Patent #11,489,503).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xu, Thompson, and Kim fail to teach the blocker signal removal device of claim 3, wherein the first common source transistor receives a first bias voltage at a gate thereof, a gate of the second common source transistor receives a second bias voltage, and a common gate of the first common gate transistor and the second common gate transistor receive a third bias voltage.
However, in related art, Abidin teaches the blocker signal removal device of claim 3, wherein the first common source transistor receives a first bias voltage at a gate thereof, a gate of the second common source transistor receives a second bias voltage (Claims 1, 8, 10, and 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Abidin’s teaching about wherein the first common source transistor receives a first bias voltage at a gate thereof, a gate of the second common source transistor receives a second bias voltage with Xu’s, Thompson’s, and Kim’s invention in order to provide saturation of transistor.
The combination of Xu, Thompson, Kim, and Abidin fail to teach a common gate of the first common gate transistor and the second common gate transistor receive a third bias voltage.
However, in related art, Bajaj teaches a common gate of the first common gate transistor and the second common gate transistor receive a third bias voltage (Claim 12….. wherein a first gate of the first transistor and a second gate of the second transistor are connected to a voltage source providing a resistive bias voltage). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Bajaj’s teaching about a common gate of the first common gate transistor and the second common gate transistor receive a third bias voltage with Xu’s, Thompson’s, Kim’s, and Abidin’s invention in order to maintain a constant bias current level over temperature.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent #9,054,648) in view of Thompson (US Patent #6,043,845) in view of Van den Heuvel et al. (US 2017/0331652), and further in view of Jeong (US 2023/0169205).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Xu and Thompson fail to teach the method of claim 16, wherein the filter circuit performs a high pass filter operation on the RF signals and a band reject filter operation to remove only signals of a predetermined frequency band in an RF band.
However, in related art, Van der Heuvel teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the filter circuit performs a high pass filter operation on the RF signals (See claim 15 and Paragraph [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Van der Heuvel’s teaching about wherein the filter circuit performs a high pass filter operation on the RF signals with Xu’s and Thompson’s invention in order to perform data/voice communications between a base station and a terminal in a radio communication system.
The combination of Xu, Thompson, and Van der Heuvel fail to teach a band reject filter operation to remove only signals of a predetermined frequency band in an RF band.
However, in related art, Jeong teaches a band reject filter operation to remove only signals of a predetermined frequency band in an RF band (Paragraphs 0080 and 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Jeong’s teaching about wherein the filter circuit performs a high pass filter operation on the RF signals with Xu’s, Thompson’s, and Van der Heuvel’s invention in order to generate the second obfuscated data by encoding the frequency-obfuscated data through a trained encoding network.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US Patent #9,054,648) in view of Thompson (US Patent #6,043,845), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2015/0139372).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Xu and Thompson fail to teach the method of claim 16, wherein outputting only the in- band signal comprises removing out-of-band signals by mixing or combining (i) the RF signals comprising the in-band signal and the out-of-band signals and (ii) the filtered signals comprising only the out-of-band signals.
However, in related art, Seo teaches the method of claim 16, wherein outputting only the in- band signal comprises removing out-of-band signals by mixing or combining (i) the RF signals comprising the in-band signal and the out-of-band signals and (ii) the filtered signals comprising only the out-of-band signals (Paragraphs 0031, 0068, 0092, especially paragraph 0031…….. The antenna 110 performs a function that receives analog radio frequency ARF signals transmitted wirelessly. The bandpass filter 120 passes a signal in a specific frequency band among received RF signals. The band filter 120 may be designed so that a pass band is limited to a certain bandwidth B, and removes out-of-signal-band noise). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Seo’s teaching about wherein outputting only the in- band signal comprises removing out-of-band signals by mixing or combining (i) the RF signals comprising the in-band signal and the out-of-band signals and (ii) the filtered signals comprising only the out-of-band signals with Xu’s and Thompson’s invention in order to achieve desired performance without having any interference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8-10, 17, and 18 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach the blocker signal removal device of claim 3, wherein the first common source transistor reverses phases of the plurality of reception signals and amplifies the plurality of reception signals by a predetermined level, the first common gate transistor amplifies the plurality of reception signals passing through the first common source transistor by a predetermined level, the second common source transistor reverses phases of the plurality of reception signals passing through the first common source transistor and amplifies the plurality of reception signals by a predetermined level, and the second common gate transistor amplifies the plurality of reception signals passing through the second common source transistor by a predetermined level.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach the blocker signal removal device of claim 2, wherein the band reject filter comprises: a first switching unit having an even number of switches that receive the plurality of reception signals from an input terminal; and a second switching unit at an output of each of the switches of the first switching unit, the switches receive master local oscillator (MLO) signals, and the second switching unit receives local oscillator (LO) signals.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 16, wherein the filter circuit comprises a band reject filter (BRF) comprising: a first switching unit having a plurality of first switches receiving master local oscillator (MLO) signals; and a second switching unit having a plurality of second switches connected to outputs of the respective plurality of first switches and receiving local oscillator (LO) signals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Darthenay et al. (US 2023/0091838), Yoshioka (US 2023/0066275), Cui et al. (US 2022/0021363), Aboudina et al. (US 2021/0234736), Jingu (US Patent #11,018,643), Aboudina et al. (US 10,873,486), Yang et al. (US 2020/0328769), Hodge, Jr. (US 2020/0220500), Alzaher (US 10,541,675), Hodge, Jr. (US 10,503,187), Yoo et al. (US 2019/0341891), Yoo et al. (US 2019/0334488), Melanson et al. (US 2018/0335458), Pehike et al. (US Patent #10,103,772), Vahid et al. (US Patent #9,225,369), Jeon et al. (US 2014/0049322), Jeon et al. (US 2013/0257545), Malaga et al. (US 2012/0147929), Dishop (US 2010/0156537), Wang (US 2009/0273399), Becker et al. (US 2008/0038001), Naviasky et al. (US 2007/0172013), Rauscher (US 2003/0169128), Mucciardi et al. (US Patent #6,474,164), and Rocha (US 2002/0141521).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132