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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1- 17 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Beppu (US 20200274508 A1).
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)(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, 2, and 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beppu (US 20200274508 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Beppu teaches,
An amplifier circuit (Fig. 7, 1B) comprising:
an amplifier (Fig. 7, 30) in a first path (Fig. 7, 21);
a first switch (Fig. 7, 47a) and a second switch (Fig. 7, 47b) connected in series in a second path (Fig. 7, 22), the second path bypassing the amplifier;
a first capacitor (Fig. 7, C5) having at least a first end connected between the first switch and the second switch in the second path; and
a third switch (Fig. 7, 48) connected between the second path and ground (Fig. 7, 19), wherein the third switch has a first end that is connected between the first switch and the second switch.
Regarding claim 2,
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 1, wherein the first capacitor (Fig. 7, C5) is connected in series in the second path.
Regarding claim 12,
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 1, wherein the amplifier is a low noise amplifier (Fig. 7, 30 is an LNA) configured to amplify a reception signal passed through the first path.
Regarding claim 13,
A communication device (Fig. 9, 1) comprising:
the amplifier circuit (Fig. 7, 1B) according to Claim 1; and
a radio frequency (RF) signal processing circuit (Fig. 9, 6) configured to process a high-frequency signal passed through the amplifier circuit.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beppu in view of Kogure et al. (US 20240235364 A1), hereinafter Kogure.
Regarding claim 3, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 2, comprising:
a second capacitor connected between the second path and ground.
Kogure discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 2, comprising:
a second capacitor (Fig. 2, C10) connected between the second path (N1 path) and ground (GND).
Beppu and Kogure are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the capacitor taught by Kogure with the switch and matching circuits taught by Beppu, in order to reduce resistance losses in the wiring lines of a switched-capacitor circuit (Kogure ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 4, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 3,
wherein the second capacitor has a first end that is connected between the first switch and the first capacitor, and wherein the first end of the third switch is connected between the first capacitor and the second switch.
Kogure discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 3,
wherein the second capacitor (Fig. 2, C10) has a first end that is connected between the first switch and the first capacitor (Fig. 2, S42 and C20), and wherein the first end of the third switch is connected between the first capacitor and the second switch (Fig. 2, S44 and C20).
Beppu and Kogure are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the capacitor taught by Kogure with the switch and matching circuits taught by Beppu, in order to reduce resistance losses in the wiring lines of a switched-capacitor circuit (Kogure ¶ 0005).
Claims 5 – 11 and 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beppu in view of Oshita et al. (US 20170302236 A1), hereinafter Oshita.
Regarding claim 5, Beppu discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 1, comprising:
Beppu is silent regarding:
a fourth switch connected between the first path and the ground.
Oshita discloses:
a fourth switch (Fig. 7, 32) connected between the first path (36a path) and the ground. (14 is connected to ground, see Figure 6 showing the details of 14).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the fourth switch taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to improve safety, simplifies troubleshooting, and can help manage power delivery and noise.
Regarding claim 6, Beppu discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 5, comprising:
an inductor (Fig. 7, L3) connected in series in the first path on an input side of the amplifier, wherein a first end of the fourth switch is connected between the inductor and an input of the amplifier.
Regarding claim 7, Beppu discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 1, comprising:
Beppu is silent regarding:
a switch circuit connected to an input terminal of the first path.
Oshita discloses:
a switch circuit (Fig. 7, 12) connected to an input terminal of the first path (36a connected to 12).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the fourth switch taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to improve safety, simplifies troubleshooting, and can help manage power delivery and noise.
Regarding claim 8, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 7, wherein the switch circuit comprises a common terminal and a plurality of selection terminals, the common terminal being connected to the input terminal of the first path.
Oshita discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 7, wherein the switch circuit (Fig. 7, 12) comprises a common terminal (12h, 12i) and a plurality of selection terminals (Fig. 7, terminals 12a – 12g), the common terminal being connected to the input terminal of the first path (12h connects to 12a).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a switch in Beppu‘s design in order to improve safety, simplifies troubleshooting, and can help manage power delivery and noise.
Regarding claim 9, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 8, comprising:
a plurality of filters each connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of selection terminals.
Oshita discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 8, comprising:
a plurality of filters (Fig. 7, 36a – 36e) each connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of selection terminals (36a-36e are connected to 12a-12f respectively).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the filters taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to filter the signal in the first path which improves signal quality by removing noise and unwanted frequencies, maintaining or boosting the desired signal, and ensuring the amplifier operates within its optimal frequency range (See paragraph [0211]).
Regarding claim 10, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 9, wherein the plurality of filters are each an acoustic wave filter.
Oshita discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 9, wherein the plurality of filters are each an acoustic wave filter (See paragraph [0211]).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the filters taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to filter the signal in the first path which improves signal quality by removing noise and unwanted frequencies, maintaining or boosting the desired signal, and ensuring the amplifier operates within its optimal frequency range (See paragraph [0211]).
Regarding claim 11, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 1, comprising:
an acoustic wave filter connected to an input terminal of the first path.
Oshita discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 1, comprising:
an acoustic wave filter (Fig. 7, 36a – 36e) connected to an input terminal of the first path (36a is connected to 12).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the filters taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to filter the signal in the first path which improves signal quality by removing noise and unwanted frequencies, maintaining or boosting the desired signal, and ensuring the amplifier operates within its optimal frequency range (See paragraph [0211]).
Regarding claim 14, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 5, wherein the fourth switch is in a disconnected state, the first and second switches are in a disconnected state, and the third switch is in a connected state.
Oshita discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 5, wherein the fourth switch is in a disconnected state, the first and second switches are in a disconnected state, and the third switch is in a connected state (See paragraphs [0129 – 0131]).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the switch states taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to control the states of the amplifier circuit which improves signal quality by removing noise and unwanted frequencies, maintaining or boosting the desired signal, and ensuring the amplifier operates within its optimal frequency range (See paragraphs [0129 - 0131]).
Regarding claim 15, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 5, wherein the fourth switch is in a connected state, the first and second switches are in a connected state, and the third switch is in a disconnected state.
Oshita discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 5, wherein the fourth switch is in a connected state, the first and second switches are in a connected state, and the third switch is in a disconnected state (See paragraphs [0129 – 0131]).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the switch states taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to control the states of the amplifier circuit which improves signal quality by removing noise and unwanted frequencies, maintaining or boosting the desired signal, and ensuring the amplifier operates within its optimal frequency range (See paragraphs [0129 - 0131]).
Regarding claim 16, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 1, comprising:
a switch circuit connected to output terminals of the first and second paths.
Oshita discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 1, comprising:
a switch circuit (Fig. 7, 18) connected to output terminals of the first and second paths (18 is connected the output of 12).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the output switch taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to enable high efficiency, reduced heat, smaller/lighter design, lower power draw, and compactness (See paragraphs [0129 - 0131]).
Regarding claim 17, Beppu is silent regarding:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 16, wherein the switch circuit comprises a common terminal and first and second selection terminals, the first selection terminal being connected to an output terminal of the first path and the second selection terminal being connected to an output terminal of the second path.
Oshita discloses:
The amplifier circuit according to Claim 16, wherein the switch circuit (Fig. 7, 18) comprises a common terminal (19 node connected to 18) and first and second selection terminals (terminals of 18), the first selection terminal being connected to an output terminal of the first path (19) and the second selection terminal being connected to an output terminal of the second path (AO).
Beppu and Oshita are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power amplifiers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the output switch taught by Oshita with the amplifier circuit taught by Beppu, in order to enable high efficiency, reduced heat, smaller/lighter design, lower power draw, and compactness (See paragraphs [0129 - 0131]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE E PINERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (ET).
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, Jessica Han can be reached on (571) 272-2078. 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.
/JOSE E PINERO/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights