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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 16, 21, 24, 29, 33 and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, line 5, “the RF signal” should correctly be “the digital RF signal”, see line 2 of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, line 2, “the compensation signal” should correctly be “the distortion compensation signal”, see claim 13, line 3.
Regarding claim 21, line 7, “the RF signal” should correctly be “the digital RF signal”, see line 5 of the claim.
Regarding claim 24, line 1, “21” should correctly be “22”. Note, “envelope shaping block” is disclosed in claim 22, line 3.
Regarding claim 24, line 3, “the compensation signal” should correctly be “the distortion compensation signal”, see claim 21, line 5.
Regarding claim 29, line 1, “21” should correctly be “25”. Note, “envelope shaping block” is disclosed in claim 22, line 3.
Regarding claim 33, line 6, “the RF signal” should correctly be “the digital RF signal”, see line 3 of the claim.
Regarding claim 36, line 2, “the compensation signal” should correctly be “the distortion compensation signal”, see claim 33, line 4.
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 13-16, 21-24 and 33-36 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 claim 13, which depended on claim 1, further claimed I/Q modulator (76) and time alignment block (86). However, it is not clear how these claimed limitations/components are connected to limitations/components claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-16, rejected because they depend on rejected claim 13.
Regarding claim 21, which depended on claim 17, further claimed I/Q modulator (76) and time alignment block (86). However, it is not clear how these claimed limitations/components are connected to limitations/components claimed in claim 17.
Regarding claims 22-24, rejected because they depend on rejected claim 21.
Regarding claim 33, which depended on claims 29 and 25, further claimed I/Q modulator (76) and time alignment block (86). However, it is not clear how these claimed limitations/components are connected to limitations/components claimed in claim 25.
Regarding claims 34-36, rejected because they depend on rejected claim 33.
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) 1-5, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott et al. (20200014337), hereinafter called SCOTT.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, SCOTT (Fig. 2) discloses a Doherty amplifier circuit comprising: a carrier amplifier (main amplifier 12) having a carrier input (14) and a carrier output (18); a peaking amplifier (peaking amplifier 22) having a peaking input (24) coupled to the carrier input (14) and a peaking output (26) coupled to the carrier output (18); and analog pre-distortion "APD" circuitry (main neutralization circuitry 28 and peak neutralization circuitry 48) configured to linearize the carrier amplifier and linearize the peaking amplifier (see paragraph [0004]) by compensating for base-to-collector capacitance "Cbc" loading of the carrier amplifier and the peaking amplifier during operation (see paragraphs [0005] and [0006] and paragraphs [0021] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising: an input impedance inverter (36) coupled between the carrier input and the peaking input; and an output impedance inverter (38) coupled between the carrier output and peaking output.
Regarding claim 3, further comprising: a carrier driver input stage (40) having a carrier driver output coupled to the carrier input; and a peaking driver input stage (44) having a peaking driver output coupled to the peaking input.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, wherein driver input stages (40 and 44) can be fabricated from various amplifier technologies (complementary metal oxide semiconductor and heterojunction bipolar transistor), see para. [0027].
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 9-12, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCOTT in view of Bowles et al. (7,619,468), hereinafter called BOWLES.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 19 and 20, SCOTT discloses claimed invention except having digital pre- distortion (DPD) circuitry as claimed. BOWLEs (Fig. 3) disclose predistortion linearizer (70).
SCOTT and BOWLES are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely Doherty amplifier. Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the reference, taken as a whole, to have modified the circuit of SCOTT to have included a digital predistortion (DPD), as taught by BOWLES. Such a modification would have imparted the advantageous benefit of compensating for or offset non-linearities causes by the non-linear operation of the Doherty amplifier, see column 3, lines 57-63, as taught by BOWLES, to Scott reference, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, wherein desired compensation percentage (greater 50%) is based on the configurations of APD/DPD. Note, the combined references (SCOTT and BOWLES) disclose APD and DPD, therefore configuring the APD and DPD to have desired compensation is considered a matter of design engineering in the absence of unexpected results.
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCOTT.
Regarding claim 25, see claim 1 above, wherein SCOTT discloses claimed invention except having baseband processor and an antenna as claimed. However, utilizing baseband processor and antenna are well-known in wireless communication circuit design, see BOWLES (Fig. 5). Therefore, incorporating baseband processor and antenna to SCOTT would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art based on intended use of the invention, wherein SCOTT’s circuit can used in wireless communication device/system.
Claims 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCOTT in view of Bowles et al. (7,619,468), hereinafter called BOWLES.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, SCOTT discloses claimed invention except having digital pre- distortion (DPD) circuitry as claimed. BOWLEs (Fig. 3) disclose predistortion linearizer (70).
SCOTT and BOWLES are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely Doherty amplifier. Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the reference, taken as a whole, to have modified the circuit of SCOTT to have included a digital predistortion (DPD), as taught by BOWLES. Such a modification would have imparted the advantageous benefit of compensating for or offset non-linearities causes by the non-linear operation of the Doherty amplifier, see column 3, lines 57-63, as taught by BOWLES, to Scott reference, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, wherein desired compensation percentage (greater 50%) is based on the configurations of APD/DPD. Note, the combined references (SCOTT and BOWLES) disclose APD and DPD, therefore configuring the APD and DPD to have desired compensation is considered a matter of design engineering in the absence of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 26-28 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 claims 6 and 26, prior art(s) does not disclose the APD circuitry is configured in response to detectors to adjust gain of a carrier amplification path that includes the carrier amplifier.
Regarding claims 7 and 27, prior art(s) does not disclose the APD circuitry is configured in response to detectors to adjust gain of a peaking amplification path that includes the peaking amplifier.
Regarding claims 8 and 28, prior art(s) does not disclose the APD circuitry is configured in response to sensors to adjust gain of a carrier amplification path that includes the carrier amplifier and to adjust gain of a peaking amplification path that includes the peaking amplifier.
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. However, it lacks APD claimed.
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