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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 7, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13-14 remain pending in the application.
Examiner notes that applicant has not amended the specification to overcome the objection provided originally in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 27, 2025, and therefore, the objection remains.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed April 7, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-4, 6-10, and 13-14 have been withdrawn.
Specification
The use of the terms Wi-Fi®, WiMax®, LTE®, and BLUETOOTH® which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see Paragraph 47, lines 1-3). The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 9-10 and 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first value or the second value" in lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the limitation to “a first value or a second value” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes. Claims 10 and 13 are likewise rejected under this logic by virtue of their dependency on claim 9.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “a first reference voltage” and “a second reference voltage” in lines 16 and 17-18, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Amending the limitations to “the first reference voltage” and “the second reference voltage”, respectively, is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitations will be treated for examination purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when taken alone, or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant.
The closest prior arts are Ishihara (Patent Publication Number US 2022/0239261 A1), as cited by applicant, hereafter referred to as Ishihara, Lacher (Patent Number US 3,916,216 A), hereafter referred to as Lacher, and Andrys et al. (Patent Number US 9,698,853 B2), hereafter referred to as Andrys.
Ishihara discloses a power amplifier with a sink current generating circuit for protection against overpower similar to that claimed by the applicant, but fails to disclose “a sink current generating circuit including a second transistor that includes . . . a first terminal directly connected to the second terminal of the first transistor” as recited by independent claim 1. Lacher discloses a sink current generating circuit including a second transistor that includes a first terminal directly connected to a second terminal of a first transistor, however, the second transistor of Lacher is not analogous to the claimed second transistor, so therefore, the combination of Ishihara and Lacher are not suitable for the application as claimed in claims 1-4 and 6-8.
Andrys discloses a power amplifier with a circuit for protection against overpower that includes a single comparator for comparing a power voltage to a reference voltage, but fails to disclose a second comparator to compare the power voltage to a second distinct reference voltage, so therefore, Andrys is not suitable for the application as claimed in claims 9-10 and 13-14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance T Bartol whose telephone number is (703)756-1267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. CT, Alternating Fridays 6:30 - 3:00.
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 at 571-272-5918. 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.
/LANCE TORBJORN BARTOL/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights