DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14-22 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of the claims 2-6, 8-9, 11, 14-19, 21-22, recites “preferably----" in one context or other, wherein the term “preferably” is a relative term and doesn’t specify a claim limitation has to be positively present and as such should be avoided (MPEP §2173).
Also, on claims 6 and 12 the term “e.g.” is considered as an example, examiner doesn’t feel it as a necessary condition to meet.
Also, in claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 20, 24 the term “and/or” is considered as an alternative limitation and if the one or the other limitation (before and after the “and/or” term) is met by the prior art, it is considered as reading on the claim.
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 8-10 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.
Claims 8-9 refers to relations of the output voltage with measured and calculated voltages in the term “preferably”. As stated in claim objections, this is a relative term and doesn’t positively recite as a claim limitation. Thus, these claims are indefinite, because there is no positively recited claim limitations in these two claims. If the applicant wishes to recite the dependance of the output voltage following the equations, it is advised to recite them positively instead of “preferably”.
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.
Claims 1-7, 14 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Balteanu et. al., (US 20180375483 A1, cited by the applicant).
Regarding claims 1, 23 and 25, Balteanu teaches a circuit for an electronic device (50 in Fig. 1 for wearable electronics, §0004) and a method of using the circuit for providing a supply voltage using:
- a voltage converter (2, par. 63: "boost converter, or a buck-boost converter) which is configured to provide at least one supply potential (VCC_PA) depending on a control signal (ENVELOPE) provided to the voltage converter (2, par. 56: "With continuing reference to FIG. 1, the envelope tracker 2 receives the envelope signal from the reconstruction filter 25 and a battery voltage VBATT from the battery 1, and uses the envelope signal to) generate a (power amplifier supply) voltage VCC_PA for the power amplifier (3) that changes in relation to the envelope (of the RF signal RFIN),
- a control unit (7, 8-12, 21-25) which is configured to provide the control signal (ENVELOPE) for the voltage converter (2), wherein per claim 24, the control unit uses a computer program comprising machine readable instruction (sing user interface 807 and the memory 806, Fig. 13 of Balteanu) which when executed on the control unit cause the control unit to perform at least a part of the method according to claims 23 (§0049),
PNG
media_image1.png
584
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Balteanu reproduced for ease of reference.
- a signal source (3) which is powered by the at least one supply potential (VCC_PA) and which is configured to provide an output signal (RFOUT) at an output of the signal source (3), wherein the signal source (3) is configured to provide the output signal dependent on an input signal (RFIN) at an input of the signal source (3), (par. 79: power amplifier supply voltage VCC_PA)
- wherein the control unit (7, 8-12, 21-25} comprises:
- a prediction unit (11, 12) which is configured to predict a change of a characteristic of the output signal (RFOUT) based on at least one of a) at least one value of the input signal and b) at least one detected value of the output signal (RFOUT), (par. 5: The sensed output signal from the directional coupler 4 is provided to the observation receiver 11, which can include mixers tor providing down conversion to generate (down converted I and Q signals, and DACs for generating I and Q observation signals from the down converted I and Q signals) and par. 58: "The intermodulation detection circuit 12 determines an intermodulation product between the I and Q observation signals and the I and Q signals from the baseband processor 7), and
- an adjusting unit (21-25) which is configured to adjust the control signal (ENVELOPE) based on the predicted change in the characteristic of the output signal (RFOUT), (the shaped envelope signal is a digital signal that is converted by the DAC 24 to an analog envelope signal. Additionally, the analog envelope signal is filtered by the reconstruction filter 25 to generate an envelope signal suitable for use by the envelope tracker 2, §0055 and the I and Q signals can be dynamically adjusted to optimize the operation of the communication system 50, §0059).
wherein per claim 2, prediction unit (11,12) configured to consider a change of an output signal voltage the output signal (RFOUT), wherein preferably the prediction unit is configured to consider a look ahead factor (the shaping circuit 23 includes a shaping table that maps each level of the digital envelope signal to a corresponding shaped envelope signal level, §0054); and
wherein per claim 3, the wherein the prediction unit (11,12) configured to predict the change of the output signal (RFOUT) based on a characteristic (detected voltage) of an electrical signal, wherein the electrical signal is the input signal or the output signal (Balteanu teaches both), wherein a first characteristic relates to a first signal value of the electrical signal at a first time and a second characteristic relates to a second signal value of the electrical signal at a second time which is after the first time (The signal delay circuit 8 provides adjustable delay to the I and Q signals to aid in controlling relative alignment between the envelope signal provided to the envelope tracker 2 and the RF signal RF IN provide to the power amplifier 3. The amount of delay provided by the signal delay circuit 8 is controlled based on amount of intermodulation in adjacent bands detected by the intermodulation detection circuit 12, §0050), preferably(?) within the same raising or falling signal part of the electrical signal after the first time, and-wherein the prediction is configured to predict the change of the output signal based on the first signal value and on the second signal value, preferably based on the difference of the second signal value and of the first signal value (The DPD circuit 9 operates to provide digital shaping to the delayed I and Q signals from the signal delay circuit 8 to generate digitally pre-distorted I and Q signals. In the illustrated embodiment, the digital shaping provided by the DPD circuit 9 is controlled based on amount of intermodulation detected by the intermodulation detection circuit 12. The DPD circuit 9 serves to reduce a distortion of the power amplifier 3 and/or to increase the efficiency of the power amplifier 3, §0051).
wherein per claim 4, a first characteristic relates to a first signal value of the electrical signal at a first peak (envelope follows the peak), the electrical signal at a first time and a second characteristic or the second characteristic relates to a second the electrical signal at a second time (interval between the monitoring is decided by a sampling rate) which is after the first time, preferably within the next oscillation (the sampling rate has to be frequent enough to cover multiple samples within a cycle of the envelope to accurate follow the envelope signal) of the electrical signal after the first time, and wherein the prediction unit (11,12) is configured to predict the change of the output signal based on the first signal value and on the second signal value (essentially the peak values are monitored at each sampling, and difference in terms of headroom for the supply voltage is determined accordingly).
Also, per claim 5, the maximum and minimum peaks alternately are being monitored to follow the envelope of the input signal, so that the supply voltage can provide a margin above the maximum and minim peaks (see Fig. 9B).
wherein per claim 6, the adjusting unit (21-25) to increase the supply voltage
-when the predicted change indicates that the amplitude of the output signal increase, and
wherein the adjusting unit (21-25) configured to adjust the control signal to decrease the supply voltage when the predicted change indicates that the amplitude of the output signal decrease, and/or
wherein the prediction unit (11,12) is configured to predict the change based on an alternating electrical signal (RF carrier signal) comprising (carrier signal is modulated using an baseband envelope frequency) a varying amplitude (according to the envelope frequency), wherein preferably a frequency of the variation of the amplitude (envelope frequency) is lower than a frequency of the variation of the alternating signal (RF carrier signal) itself (variation of the amplitude is following the envelope frequency while the alternating signal is following the carrier frequency and the carrier frequency is much higher than the envelope frequency, because the envelope frequency is baseband in few kHz to few MHz while the carrier frequency is in GHz).
Further per claim 7, the circuit comprises a detecting unit (an intermodulation detection circuit 12, §0047) acts as a detecting unit,
wherein the detecting unit is configured to detect the output voltage of the signal source (the I and Q component of the input signal, see Fig. 1), and
wherein the prediction unit (12) is configured to predict the change based on the detected output voltage (receiving from the observation receiver 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
379
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Balteanu reproduced for ease of reference.
Per claim 14, the circuit of claim 1, further comprising a signal conditioning unit (106 in Fig. 3) which is configured to transform two input voltage signals (output of 143, input of 141), to a single output signal, wherein the single output signal corresponds to a reference current (107).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu in view of Paul et al. (US 7,224,232 B2, hereinafter "Paul").
Regarding claim 17, Balteanu discloses substantially all the elements recited in claim 17, the power amplifier (3) as a signal source. Specifically, with respect to the signal source (element 3 of Balteanu), the reference teaches:
To address the specific limitation of Differential Power Amplifier Architecture: Figure 14 of Paul illustrates "an embodiment of a two-stage differential power amplifier" (Paul, col. 3, lines 49-51) comprising complementary differential transistor pairs with inputs 1 and 2 arranged to receive differential input signals with waveform in phase opposition" (Paul, col. 8, lines 15-25; Fig. 3b). Therefore, it is well known in the art that the output current of the differential amplifier is given by IPAT = gm* (VINPUT1 - VINPUT2) , where, IPAT is the output current of the signal source (PA, 3),
gm is a conductance value of the amplifier (3),
VINPUT1 is a first input voltage on a non-inverting input node of the amplifier (Fig. 14, Paul), and
VINPUT2 is a second input voltage on an inverting input node of the amplifier (Fig. 14, Paul).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to configure the single ended power amplifier (3, Fig. 1) of Balteanu as a differential amplifier according to the teachings of Paul for the following reasons:
Both Paul and Balteanu are directed to power amplifiers for mobile communication applications, i.e., the same technical problems in the same field using analogous semiconductor technologies (GaAs HBT).
Due to the advantages of differential power amplifier configurations as well-established in the art reduced peak voltages across transistor junctions, thereby enabling implementation in technologies with lower breakdown voltages (Paul, col. 6, lines 50-65), improved linearity through cancellation of even-order harmonic distortion (Paul, col. 8, lines 30-40), enhanced common-mode noise rejection, a critical consideration in mobile communication devices subject to electromagnetic interference (Paul, col. 10, lines 15-25); and higher output power capability from a given supply voltage through differential voltage swing (Paul, col. 7, lines 20-35).
The modification from single-ended to differential amplifier configuration represents nothing more than the substitution of one known amplifier topology for another to achieve the predictable advantages taught in the prior art.
The technical literature contemporaneous with the effective filing date of the claimed invention confirms the obviousness of applying differential power amplifier configurations to GaAs HBT amplifiers for mobile communication applications: Differential power amplifier topologies in GaAs HBT technology were extensively described in the patent literature (see, e.g., US 7,200,370 B2, Behzad, col. 3, lines 45-55, describing differential cascode RF power amplifiers);
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu in view of Ni et al. (US20150171797 of the same inventive entity).
PNG
media_image3.png
473
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 8 (left) and 19 (right) of Balteanu reproduced for ease of reference.
Further per claim 18, the signal source (3) of Balteanu comprises:
a bias generating unit (In Fig. 11B, contact pads 732 are configured to provide bias signals, and supply voltage(s) to the power amplifier (PA, 3) die 702, §0120). Although Balteanu is not explicit about the PA, please note the PA of the inventive entity (Skyworks Inc. in case of Balteanu) for typical mobile communication (subscriber set) applications are usually two stage GaAs HBT amplifiers as shown above of Ni wherein,
a first amplifier stage (Q1), connected to the bias generating unit (Bias1), and
a second amplifier stage (Q2), at least one input of which is connected to at least one output of the first amplifier stage (Q1) via at least one current mirror unit (the current mirror bias configuration is 60 in Fig. 19 of Ni).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to have the PA of Balteanu as a two stage PA as taught by Ni especially since both inventions are designed around the same PA of the same inventive entity for similar mobile communication subscriber set application.
Balteanu discloses substantially all of the elements recited in claim 18. Specifically, with respect to the signal source (element 3 of Balteanu), the reference teaches:
A bias generating unit is disclosed in Figure 11B, wherein contact pads 732 are configured to provide bias signals and supply voltage(s) to the power amplifier (PA) die 702 (Balteanu, §0120).
While Balteanu does not explicitly delineate the internal architecture of the power amplifier, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the power amplifier of the same inventive entity (Skyworks Solutions, Inc.) employed in typical mobile communication subscriber equipment would be configured as disclosed in the contemporaneous Ni reference. Specifically, Ni teaches a power amplifier architecture comprising:
A first amplifier stage (Q1) operatively connected to the bias generating unit (Bias1); and
A second amplifier stage (Q2) having at least one input connected to at least one output of the first amplifier stage (Q1) via at least one current mirror unit (wherein the current mirror bias configuration is identified as element 60 in Figure 19 of Ni).
Ni further discloses that such power amplifiers are typically implemented as two-stage gallium arsenide (GaAs) heterojunction bipolar transistor (HBT) amplifiers, as illustrated in the accompanying figure reproduced above.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to configure the power amplifier of Balteanu according to the two-stage architecture explicitly taught by Ni for the following reasons:
Common Inventive Entity: Both Balteanu and Ni originate from the same inventive entity (Skyworks Solutions, Inc.), suggesting a shared technical foundation and design philosophy;
Analogous Art: Both references are directed to substantially identical applications, namely power amplifiers for mobile communication subscriber equipment, and would therefore be considered analogous art under the §103 analysis;
Predictable Results: The combination of Balteanu's bias generation circuitry with Ni's two-stage power amplifier architecture would yield predictable results, as both references operate within the same technical field and address similar design considerations; and
Ordinary Design Choice: Implementing a two-stage amplifier configuration, as taught by Ni, represents nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—a combination that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Balteanu and Ni renders claim 18 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as the references collectively teach or suggest all the recited limitations, and one of ordinary skill would have had both the motivation and reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of these references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13, 15-16, 19-22 are objected and would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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 the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-11 are allowable because the closest prior art of record, Balteanu doesn’t teach explicitly the relations, or the model as claimed.
Claim 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12 is allowable because the closest prior art of record, Balteanu doesn’t teach explicitly a current control unit as claimed.
Claims 15 is allowable because the closest prior art of record, Balteanu doesn’t teach explicitly a first diode, and a first capacitor connected to the diode as claimed.
Claims 19 is allowable because the closest prior art of record, Balteanu modified in view of Paul doesn’t teach explicitly current feedback to the signal source (i.e. the PA, 3 of Balteanu).
Claims 20-21 are allowable because the closest prior art of record, Balteanu doesn’t teach an input signal as specified in claim 20.
Claim 22 is allowable because the closest prior art doesn’t teach an electrode on
the head of a person which is trained non-therapeutically by the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0659. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on (571) 272-1769. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/HAFIZUR RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843.