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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Regarding claim 13, applicant asserts that: “The Examiner asserts that "As to claim 13, it is not clear how 'a second inductive element' is connected and operates in the oscillator." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The usage of an inductive element in an oscillator is commonly known. For example, it is commonly known that an oscillator may be implemented with a tank circuit that includes an inductive element. Therefore, how an inductive element is connected and operates in an oscillator is clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 13 is clear and requests withdrawal of this rejection.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
A commonly known “tank circuit” is not currently recited in claim 13. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
Regarding claim 14, applicant asserts that: “The Examiner asserts that "As to claim 14, it is not clear how 'a second inductive element', and 'a first inductive element' are connected and operate in the oscillator." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The usage of an inductive element (e.g., the claimed first inductive element) in an amplifier such as a power amplifier (PA) of a transmit path is commonly known. For example, the structure of an amplifier using an inductive element for various functions, such as filtering of noise or stabilizing current, is commonly known. Similarly, the usage of an inductive element (e.g., the claimed second inductive element) in an oscillator is commonly known, as described herein. FIG. 3, and the associated description, of the present disclosure describes the coupling between an oscillator (e.g., as part of a synthesizer such as synthesizer 318) and an amplifier such as the PA 316. Therefore, how inductive elements in an amplifier and oscillator are connected and operate is clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 14 is clear and requests withdrawal of this rejection.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Applicant’s assertions that “FIG. 3, and the associated description, of the present disclosure describes the coupling between an oscillator (e.g., as part of a synthesizer such as synthesizer 318) and an amplifier such as the PA 316” are not in the claim. In addition, Figure 3 of the instant specification is totally silent about how “a second inductive element”, and “a first inductive element” are connected and operate in the oscillator. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant asserts that: “The Examiner concedes that Taghivand fails to disclose that the frequency adjustment circuit comprises a step-symmetric inductive element, but relies on Terrovitis for teaching this feature. OA, page 5. However, Terrovitis does not disclose a step-symmetric inductive element as claimed. Rather, Terrovitis discloses a layout technique for arranging two separate inductors in a differential circuit using step symmetry relative to each other. As Terrovitis states, "the inductor pairs of a differential circuit can be formed using step symmetry and the remainder of the components in the circuit can be formed using mirror symmetry." Col. 3, lines 45-51. The "step symmetry" in Terrovitis refers to the relative positioning of two separate inductors-not a single inductive element (e.g., a step-symmetric inductive element) that itself has step-symmetric structure. Therefore, Terrovitis fails to teach "the frequency adjustment circuit comprising a step- symmetric inductive element" as recited in claim 1 and fails to overcome the deficiencies of Taghivand.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Claim 1 does not require that “a step-symmetric inductive element” is a single inductor, and fails to further define the structure of “a step-symmetric inductive element”. In this instance, the claimed “a step-symmetric inductive element” reads on a combination of the two inductors 401 shown in figure 4, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding independent claims 17 and 29, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding dependent claims 2-16, 18-21, and 30, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims 1-21, 29-30 are proper.
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 13-14 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.
As to claim 13, it is not clear how “a second inductive element” is connected and operates in the oscillator. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
As to claim 14, it is not clear how “a second inductive element”, and “a first inductive element” are connected and operate in the oscillator. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 15-19, 21, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taghivand (US 10,855,225) in view of Terrovitis (US 7,242,274).
As to claim 1, Taghivand discloses a transceiver (see at least figure 1), comprising: an oscillator (120 and/or 132 in figure 1; 208 in figure 2); and a frequency adjustment circuit 206 (see figure 2), an output of the oscillator (208 in figure 2) being coupled to an input of the frequency adjustment circuit 206 (see column 4 line 62 to column 5 line 6). Taghivand further discloses that the frequency adjustment circuit 206 comprises inductive element 314, but fails to disclose that the frequency adjustment circuit 206 comprising a step-symmetric inductive element. Terrovitis discloses a step-symmetric inductive element (see at least figure 4; column 1 lines 17-21, column 3 lines 45-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Terrovitis to Taghivand, in order to cancel common-mode magnetic fields (as suggested by Terrovitis at column 2 lines 56-64, column 4 lines 62-64).
As to claim 2, Taghivand discloses that the transceiver further comprises: a mixer (114, 126 in figure 1, 202 in figure 2) having a local-oscillator (LO) input coupled to an output of the frequency adjustment circuit 206 (see figure 2); and an amplifier (118, 124 in figure 1) coupled to the mixer (114, 126 in figure 1).
As to claims 3, 21, Taghivand discloses that the oscillator is a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) 210 (see figure 2; column 5 lines 4-8).
As to claim 4, Taghivand discloses that the oscillator 210 (see figure 2) is configured to generate a half local-oscillator (LO) signal having a frequency that is half a LO frequency of the transceiver and wherein the frequency adjustment circuit 206 comprises a frequency doubler configured to generate an LO signal based on the half LO signal (see column 5 lines 4-20).
As to claims 5, 18, the combination of Taghivand and Terrovitis discloses that the step-symmetric inductive element has a first inductive portion and a second inductive portion and wherein current is configured to flow in the first inductive portion in a first angular direction and in the second inductive portion in a second angular direction opposite to the first angular direction. See Terrovitis, column 1 lines 54-56, column 2 lines 5-11. See also the instant specification, at paragraph [0042], defines “a step-symmetric inductive element” as “an inductive element including inductive portions (e.g., two coils) that are oriented in a same spiral (e.g., spirals that are in the same angular direction). For example, the inductive element may have a structure such that, at a point in time, current flows in a first portion of the inductive element in a first angular direction (e.g., clockwise direction) and flows in a second portion of the inductive element in a second opposite angular direction (e.g., counter-clockwise direction).” Therefore, “a step-symmetric inductive element” in Terrovitis would inherently include all characteristics defined in the instant specification, paragraph [0042].
As to claims 6, 19, the combination of Taghivand and Terrovitis discloses that the step-symmetric inductive element includes a first inductive portion and a second inductive portion and wherein the first inductive portion and the second inductive portion are oriented with a same spiral. See Terrovitis, column 1 lines 23-35. See also the instant specification, at paragraph [0042], defines “a step-symmetric inductive element” as “an inductive element including inductive portions (e.g., two coils) that are oriented in a same spiral (e.g., spirals that are in the same angular direction). For example, the inductive element may have a structure such that, at a point in time, current flows in a first portion of the inductive element in a first angular direction (e.g., clockwise direction) and flows in a second portion of the inductive element in a second opposite angular direction (e.g., counter-clockwise direction).” Therefore, “a step-symmetric inductive element” in Terrovitis would inherently include all characteristics defined in the instant specification, paragraph [0042].
As to claim 15, Taghivand discloses an amplifier 118 coupled to an output of the frequency adjustment circuit 206, wherein the amplifier 118 comprises a power amplifier (PA).
As to claim 16, Taghivand discloses an amplifier 124 coupled to an output of the frequency adjustment circuit 206, wherein the amplifier 124 comprises a low-noise amplifier (LNA).
As to claim 17, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. Taghivand further discloses a frequency synthesizer 120, 132 (see figure 1).
As to claim 29, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
As to claim 30, Taghivand discloses generating, via a mixer 114, 126 (see figure 1), a mixed signal based on the second oscillating signal (see output from doubler 206 in figure 2) to be processed for signal reception or to be amplified for signal transmission.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taghivand (US 10,855,225) in view of Terrovitis (US 7,242,274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 10,749,468).
As to claim 7, the combination of Taghivand and Terrovitis fails to disclose the oscillator comprises an inductive element having a first inductive portion and a second inductive portion, wherein the first inductive portion is wound around a first core, and wherein the second inductive portion is wound around a second core. Park discloses that an oscillator comprises an inductive element having a first inductive portion and a second inductive portion, wherein the first inductive portion is wound around a first core, and wherein the second inductive portion is wound around a second core. See figures 14-16, column 16 lines 56-61. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Park to the combination of Taghivand and Terrovitis, in order to improve net gain in the SNR of the VCO (as suggested by Park at column 5 lines 50-65).
As to claim 8, the combination of Taghivand and Terrovitis fails to disclose that the oscillator comprises a dual-core structure. Park discloses that an oscillator comprises a dual-core structure. See figures 14-16, column 16 lines 56-61. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Park to the combination of Taghivand and Terrovitis, in order to improve net gain in the SNR of the VCO (as suggested by Park at column 5 lines 50-65).
Claims 9-12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taghivand (US 10,855,225) in view of Terrovitis (US 7,242,274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jordan (US 2014/0191800).
As to claim 9, the combination of Taghivand and Terrovitis discloses that an amplifier (see amplifiers 122, 134 in Taghivand, figure 1) coupled to an output of the frequency adjustment circuit 206 (Taghivand, figure 2), but fails to disclose that the amplifier (122, 134) comprises a transformer having a winding, wherein a first portion of the winding is wound around a first core, and wherein a second portion of the winding is wound around a second core. Jordan discloses that an amplifier (see at least figure 1) comprises a transformer 12 having a winding, wherein a first portion of the winding is wound around a first core 24(1), and wherein a second portion of the winding is wound around a second core 24(2). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Jordan to the combination of Taghivand and Terrovitis, in order to improve a total gain of the amplifier and provide proper impedance matching (as suggested by Jordan at paragraphs [0003], [0005]).
As to claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to claim 9 as set forth above.
As to claims 11, 20, Taghivand discloses that an amplifier (see amplifiers 122, 134 in figure 1) coupled to an output of the frequency adjustment circuit 206 (see figure 2), but fails to disclose that the amplifier (122, 134) comprises a first inductive element having a first inductive portion and a second inductive portion, wherein the first inductive portion is disposed adjacent to a first side of an axis bisecting the first inductive element, and wherein the second inductive portion is disposed adjacent to a second side of the axis. As discussed above, Terrovitis discloses a step-symmetric inductive element comprising a first inductive element 401 (see at least figure 4) having a first inductive portion and a second inductive portion, wherein the first inductive portion is disposed adjacent to a first side of an axis 410 bisecting the first inductive element, and wherein the second inductive portion is disposed adjacent to a second side of the axis. In this instance, the claimed “a first inductive portion” reads on the inductive portion disposed on the left side of axis 410, and the claimed “a second inductive portion” reads on the inductive portion disposed on the right side of axis 410. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Terrovitis to the combination of Taghivand and Jordan, in order to cancel common-mode magnetic fields (as suggested by Terrovitis at column 2 lines 56-64, column 4 lines 62-64).
As to claim 12, the combination of Taghivand, Terrovitis, and Jordan discloses current is configured to flow in the first inductive portion in a first angular direction and in the second inductive portion in a second angular direction opposite to the first angular direction. See Terrovitis, column 1 lines 54-56, column 2 lines 5-11. See also the instant specification, at paragraph [0042], defines “a step-symmetric inductive element” as “an inductive element including inductive portions (e.g., two coils) that are oriented in a same spiral (e.g., spirals that are in the same angular direction). For example, the inductive element may have a structure such that, at a point in time, current flows in a first portion of the inductive element in a first angular direction (e.g., clockwise direction) and flows in a second portion of the inductive element in a second opposite angular direction (e.g., counter-clockwise direction).” Therefore, “a step-symmetric inductive element” in Terrovitis would inherently include all characteristics defined in the instant specification, paragraph [0042].
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taghivand (US 10,855,225) in view of Terrovitis (US 7,242,274), Jordan (US 2014/0191800) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Park (US 10,749,468).
As to claim 13, the combination of Taghivand, Terrovitis, and Jordan fails to disclose that the oscillator comprises a second inductive element disposed on the axis 410 in Terrovitis (see figure 4). As discussed in the rejection to claim 7 above, Park discloses that an oscillator comprises a first inductive element, and a second inductive element. See figures 14-16, column 16 lines 56-61. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Park to the combination of Taghivand, Terrovitis, and Jordan, in order to improve net gain in the SNR of the VCO (as suggested by Park at column 5 lines 50-65).
The above combination of Taghivand, Terrovitis, Jordan, and Park fails to further disclose that the second inductive element of the oscillator is disposed on the axis 410 in Terrovitis (see figure 4). Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary location of the second inductive element of the oscillator with respect to the axis 410 of the step-symmetrical inductive element in Terrovitis. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that the second inductive element of the oscillator is disposed on the axis 410. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above combination as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as improving design flexibilities.
As to claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to claim 13 as set forth above. In addition, the above combination of Taghivand, Terrovitis, Jordan, and Park fails to further disclose that the axis 410 in Terrovitis (see figure 4) comprises an axis of symmetry associated with the first inductive element and a second inductive element of the oscillator. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary location of the first and second inductive elements of the oscillator with respect to the axis 410 of the step-symmetrical inductive element in Terrovitis. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that the axis 410 in Terrovitis (see figure 4) comprises an axis of symmetry associated with the first inductive element and a second inductive element of the oscillator. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above combination as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as improving design flexibilities.
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 NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646