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 .
Amended claim 1 is the broadest independent claim I ever seen. Please amend the claim 1 in reasonable way. Thank you.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the different current densities recited in claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Sheade et al (Fig. 1); 4,758,793].
Regarding claim 1, Sheade et al discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a radio frequency detector (22) having an RF detector input (input of 22) and an RF detector output (23) and configured to receive an input RF signal (RF IN) at the RF detector input (input of 22), and a thermal voltage multiplier circuit (35a, 35a’) having a multiplier terminal (upper terminals of 35a and 35a’) coupled to the RF detector output (23).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the radio frequency detector (22) and the thermal voltage multiplier circuit (35a, 35a’) are a part of a power detector (18).
Regarding claim 14, Sheade et al discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a radio frequency detector (22) having an RF detector input (input of 22) and an RF detector output (23) and the radio frequency detector (22) configured to provide a first signal (the signal coming out of the terminal 23) at the RF detector output (23) responsive to an input RF signal (RF IN) at the RF detector input (input of 22), and a processing circuit (36a, 36b, 35a, 35a’, 36b, 36c, 35b, 35b’) having a processing terminal (output terminal of 36a) coupled to the RF detector output (23) and the processing circuit (36a, 36b, 35a, 35a’, 36b, 36c, 35b, 35b’) configured to provide a third signal (output signal of 36a) at the processing terminal (output terminal of 36a) based on scaling the first signal (the signal coming out of the terminal 23) by a factor that is proportional to temperature.
Regarding claim 15, wherein the factor is based on a thermal voltage (the voltage present on the schottky diodes 35a and 35a’).
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) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Sheade et al (Fig. 1); 4,758,793].
Sheade et al discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a processing circuit (36a, 36b, 35a, 35a’, 36b, 36c, 35b, 35b’) and wherein the processing circuit (36a, 36b, 35a, 35a’, 36b, 36c, 35b, 35b’) includes schottky diodes 35a and 35a’ which is coupled to the processing terminal (output terminal of 36a). The schottky diode (35a or 35a’) is functionally equivalent to the claimed diode connected BJT. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have replaced the diode connected BJT with the schottky diode since the schottky diode is functionally equivalent to the claimed diode connected BJT.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Humpherys (Fig. 1); 5,656,929] in view of [Sheade et al (Fig. 1); 4,758,793].
Humpherys discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a radio frequency detector (7) having an RF detector input (6) and an RF detector output (8) and configured to receive an input RF signal (RF) at the RF detector input (6), and an analog multiplier (14) having a multiplier terminal (right terminal of 14) coupled to the RF detector output (8). As described above, Humpherys discloses all the limitations in claim 1 except for that the multiplier being a thermal voltage multiplier. Sheade et al discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a thermal voltage multiplier (35a, 35a’). It would have been obvious to substitute Sheade et al’s thermal voltage multiplier (35a, 35a’ in Fig. 1 of Sheade et al) in place of Humpherys’s multiplier (14 in Fig. 1 of Humpherys) since Humpherys disclose a generic multiplier thereby suggesting that any equivalent multiplier would have been usable in Humpherys’s reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 and 17-19 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 20 and 21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Also, applicant argues that according to 35 USC 113, applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented. However, contrary to the applicant’s argument, the different current densities recited in claim 17 are necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented. Again, according to 37 CFR 1.83(a), drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. It [37 CFR 1.83(a)] doesn’t say if you understand the subject matter to be patented, the drawings do not require to show the subject matter to be patented. Therefor, applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights