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 .
Priority
Foreign priority is not claimed for this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 2, claim 14 line 4, and claim 20 line 2: “fiend effect transistor” should read “field effect transistor.”
Claim 20 line 11: “IC gate” should read “integrated circuit (IC) gate.”
Claim 20 second to last line: “to ceasing the amplification” should read “to cease the amplification.”
Claim 20 last line: “drive the drain” should read “drives the drain.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11683011. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both refer to the same field of invention: radio frequency power amplifiers.
As set forth below, the chart identifies which claims from the current application corresponds to conflicting claims found in the cited US Patent.
Current Application 18/337,868
U.S. Patent 11683011
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
14
As disclosed in the chart above, the US patent claims 1-18 substantially recite the same limitations recited in claims 1-19 of the current application as listed above. However, the following differences between the US patent claims and the current application claims are present as set forth below:
The US patent claim 1 has the additional limitation of “wherein the switch brings the power amplifier to ground and dissipates a current at the power amplifier in less than 100 nanoseconds” which is similar to claim 13 of the present application.
The US patent claim 14 has the additional limitation of “wherein switching the off state GaNFET brings the RF power MOSFET power amplifier to ground and dissipates a current at the RF power MOSFET power amplifier in less than 100 nanoseconds” which is similar to claim 19 of the present application.
Therefore, claims 1-18 of the patent meets claims 1-19 of the present application under an “anticipation” analysis in an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10530301. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 9041365 by Kay et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kay teaches a radio frequency (RF) circuit (Fig. 2, 3), comprising:
a voltage source (Fig. 2, 3 Vpower) that supplies gain voltage;
a power amplifier (Fig. 2 #26); and
a switch (Fig. 3 #14) electrically coupled to the voltage source (Vpower), ground, and the power amplifier (Fig. 2 #26, Fig. 3 Vsupply coupled to the PA),
wherein the switch selectively applies the gain voltage to the power amplifier and/or selectively applies ground to the power amplifier (Col. 8 lines 61-67, Col. 9 lines 1-41).
Regarding claim 2, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 1, wherein the power amplifier is a RF amplifier (Fig. 2 #26).
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.
Claim(s) 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9041365 by Kay et al.
Regarding claim 3, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 2, wherein the radio frequency amplifier is a power RF metal-oxide fiend effect transistor (MOSFET) (While not explicitly stated, Kay uses FETs in other parts of the circuit (such as the switch) and MOSFETs are very well known in the art and commonly used in power amplifiers as shown in fig. 7 of teaching reference US 20160231243 by Adabi et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 3, but doesn’t explicitly teach that the gain voltage is applied to a drain of the power RF MOSFET. However, this is simply design engineering and is known in the art, as shown in teaching reference US 20160231243 by Adabi et al. Fig. 7 which shows a switching PA circuit with a power supply gain voltage applied to a drain of a PA MOSFET (Fig. 7 #80a).
Regarding claim 5, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 4, wherein the voltage source is a DC voltage source (Col. 4 lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 6, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 5. Kay does not teach desired voltage (40V) as claimed. However, it is well known that for a circuit to operate, some power is needed. And the amount of power used depends on an intended use of the invention, such as circuit's design etc., which is considered within one of ordinary skill in the art. Note, Kay (Fig. 3) also discloses voltage supply (#58), which can be at least 40V.
Regarding claim 7, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 6, wherein the switch (Fig. 3 #14) comprises a first on state switch (Fig. 3 #52) and a second off state switch (Fig. 3 #54).
Regarding claim 8, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 7, wherein the first on state switch (Fig. 3 #52) is a Gallium Nitride field effect transistor (GaNFET) and the second off state switch (Fig. 3 #54) is also a GaNFET.
Kay doesn’t explicitly teach what types of FETs the switches are. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to replace the transistor switches in Kay with GaNFET switches in order to have a higher operating voltage, higher temperature operation, and higher efficiency (Par. 68 of teaching reference US 20120313709 by Lautzenhiser).
Regarding claim 9, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 8, but fails to teach that the first on state GaNFET and second off state GaNFET are connected in a H-bridge configuration. However, the structure of half-bridges and full H-bridges with switching transistors is well known in the art, as is shown in fig. 2 and 3 of teaching reference US 20150333708 by Yuzurihara and would have been easy to implement in Kay.
Regarding claim 10, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 9, wherein the first on state GaNFET (Fig. 3 #52) electrically connects the power amplifier to the voltage source (Fig. 3 Vpower).
Regarding claim 11, Kay teaches the RF circuit of claim 10, wherein the second off state GaNFET (Fig. 3 #54) electrically connects the power amplifier to ground.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9438172 by Cohen.
Regarding claim 14, Cohen teaches a method for controlling a radio frequency (RF) circuit, comprising:
receiving a trigger signal (Fig. 3 output of #102);
based on the trigger signal, switching an on state GaNFET (Fig. 3 #202), electrically coupled to a RF power metal oxide fiend effect transistor (MOSFET) amplifier, to connect a drain of the RF power MOSFET power amplifier (Fig. 3 #110) to a DC voltage source (Fig. 3 1.8 V);
amplifying an RF signal with the RF power MOSFET amplifier while the on state GaNFET is switched;
ending an RF envelope (Fig. 3 #114);
based on ending the RF envelope:
switching again the on state GaNFET (Fig. 3 #202);
switching an off state GaNFET (Fig. 3 #204), also electrically coupled to the RF power MOSFET amplifier (Fig. 3 #110), to drive the drain of the RF power MOSFET amplifier substantially to ground (Col. 4 lines 33-37); and
discontinuing amplification of the RF signal with the RF power MOSFET amplifier.
While Cohen doesn’t specify the type of transistor that is used in the power amplifier, MOSFETs are extremely common and well known in the art. Cohen also doesn’t specify that the switches are GaNFET switches, however a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to replace the transistor switches in Cohen with GaNFET switches in order to have a higher operating voltage, higher temperature operation, and higher efficiency (Par. 68 of teaching reference US 20120313709 by Lautzenhiser).
Regarding claim 15, Cohen teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the power amplifier is a radio frequency (RF) amplifier (Col. 3 lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 16, Cohen teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the DC voltage source provides the gain voltage for the RF power MOSFET amplifier (Col. 7 lines 42-44; the trigger signal controls the switches which controls the gain).
Regarding claim 17, Cohen teaches the method of claim 16, but fails to teach that the on state GaNFET and the off state GaNFET are connected in a H-bridge configuration. However, the structure of half-bridges and full H-bridges with switching transistors is well known in the art, as is shown in fig. 2 and 3 of teaching reference US 20150333708 by Yuzurihara and would have been easy to implement in Kay.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7826815 by Ajram et al. teaches a method for providing power to a radio frequency amplifier using switching transistors.
US 8294445 by Kwok teaches a switching power supply for an amplifier
US 9923520 by Abdelfattah et al. teaches a switching power supply for a power amplifier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAREH SHAMIRYAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-4:00PM PT.
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.
/NAREH SHAMIRYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843