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
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, line 2, “The” should correctly be “the”.
Regarding claim 9, line 2, “the control unit” should correctly be “the control circuit”, see claim 1, line 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, which recited “a number of resource blocks”. However, it is not clear from the specification which part of the circuit from the submitted drawings called “resource blocks” are intended. Clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pehlke (11,165,393).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Pehlke (Fig. 10) discloses a communication system comprising: a Doherty power amplifier (843) including a peak amplifier and a carrier amplifier that are disposed in respective signal paths independently of each other; a baseband processor (841) read as a measurement circuit that measures a transmission power for transmitting a radio signal obtained by combining an output signal via coupler (844) from the peak amplifier and an output signal from the carrier amplifier; and a PA supply control (848) read as a control circuit that performs control to turn off a first power supply of the peak amplifier in a case where a decrease in the transmission power is detected, see column 13, line 59 to column 15, line 33.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the control circuit (848) is inherently performing control to turn off the first power supply in a case where the decrease in the transmission power is detected for a threshold time, see column 13, line 59 to column 15, line 33.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the control circuit (848) is inherently performing control to turn off the first power supply during a period in which a sent signal sent from a terminal device that receives the radio signal is received, see column 13, line 59 to column 15, line 33.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, prior art(s) does not disclose a digital-to-analog converter and a processing circuit that processes a signal output from the digital-to-analog converter are disposed at each of a previous stage of the peak amplifier and a previous stage of the carrier amplifier, and the control circuit performs control to turn off a second power supply of the digital-to-analog converter on the peak amplifier side and a third power supply of the processing circuit on the peak amplifier side together with the first power supply.
Regarding claim 6, prior art(s) does not disclose the control circuit reduces a number of antenna elements to be used when the radio signal is transmitted from a number of antenna elements in a normal state before the control to turn off the first power supply is performed in a case where it is determined that a first terminal device that receives the radio signal is farther from a radio device that transmits the radio signal than a second terminal device that does not receive the radio signal and a number of first terminal devices is smaller than a number of second terminal devices.
Regarding claim 7, prior art(s) does not disclose the control circuit changes a first modulation scheme of a radio device to a second modulation scheme that has a multilevel lower than a multilevel of the first modulation scheme in a case where it is determined that a first terminal device that receives the radio signal is farther from the radio device that transmits the radio signal than a second terminal device that does not receive the radio signal and a number of first terminal devices is larger than a number of second terminal devices.
Regarding claim 8, prior art(s) does not disclose a control device that controls the radio device.
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional reference(s) cited in PTO-892 show further analogous prior art circuitry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh V. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1767. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, LINDGREN BALTZELL ANDREA can be reached on (571) 272-5918. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHANH V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights