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 Amendment
The amendment filed April 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 2, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see pages 8-10, that previously presented prior art reference Van de Hiden et al. (Patent Publication Number CN 102,237,853 A), hereafter referred to as Van de Hiden, fails to disclose a pair of input capacitors directly connected to balanced ports of a transmission line transformer, and that therefore, the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are invalid. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a pair of input capacitors directly connected to balanced ports of a transmission line transformer) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As recited in the claims, the pair of input capacitors are merely “connected” to the balanced ports of the transmission line transformer, with no suggestion of a direct connection, and therefore, the input capacitors of Van de Hiden are appropriately mapped to the claimed input capacitors. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unconvincing, and the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informality: On claim 9, line 12, replace “ground” with “a ground”. Claims 10-13 and 15 are likewise objected under this logic by virtue of their dependencies on claim 9.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 16-20 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation "the ground" in lines 10-11 and 19-20, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Amending the limitation to “a ground” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes. Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 17-20 are likewise rejected under this logic by virtue of their dependencies on claims 1 and 16.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van de Hiden.
Regarding claim 1, Van de Hiden discloses:
An output matching network (Van de Hiden, Fig. 5, 502) comprising: a first transmission line (Fig. 5, see T1 in modified Fig. 5 below) and a second transmission line (Fig. 5, see T2 in modified Fig. 5 below) each having one end connected to a respective balanced port of a pair of balanced ports (Fig. 5, see connection between T1, T2, and 202 in modified Fig. 5 below); a third transmission line (Fig. 5, see T3 in modified Fig. 5 below) having one end connected to an unbalanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T3 and 510 in modified Fig. 5 below); a fourth transmission line (Fig. 5, see T4 in modified Fig. 5 below); a first capacitor (Fig. 5, CS1) connected to the unbalanced port and a load (Fig. 5, see connection between CS1, 510, and RL); and a second capacitor (Fig. 5, CS2) connected to an end of the fourth transmission line (Fig. 5, see connection between CS2 and T4 in modified Fig. 5 below), wherein the third and fourth transmission lines are coupled to the first and second transmission lines, respectively, (Fig. 5, see connections between T1 and T3, and T2 and T4 in modified Fig. 5 below) wherein the pair of balanced ports are connected to a pair of input capacitors (Fig. 5, see connection between T1 and C1 and between T2 and C2 in modified Fig. 5 below) connected to the ground (Fig. 5, see connection between C1 and C2 and ground).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein each of the first through fourth transmission lines has an electrical length of 90 degrees or less (Van de Hiden, Paragraph 90, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein another end of the first transmission line is connected to another end of the second transmission line (Van de Hiden, see connection between T1 and T2 at VDD in modified Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 9, Van de Hiden discloses:
A power amplifier network (Van de Hiden, Fig. 5) comprising: a power amplifier (Fig. 5, 202) configured to amplify an input signal to provide an amplified input signal including first and second differential signals, at first and second balanced ports, respectively (Fig. 5, consider differential outputs of 202); and an output matching network (Fig. 5, 502) including: an unbalanced port (Fig. 5, 510) at which an unbalanced output signal is output to a load (Fig. 5, see connection between 510 and RL); a balun circuit (Fig. 5, 502) including a plurality of transmission lines (Fig. 5, see T1, T2, T3, and T4 in modified Fig. 5 above) that receive the first and second differential signals (Fig. 5, see connection between T1, T2, and 202 in modified Fig. 5 above), wherein the balun circuit converts the first and second differential signals to the unbalanced output signal at the unbalanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T3, T4, and 510 in modified Fig. 5 above); a first capacitor (Fig. 5, CS1) connected to the unbalanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between CS1, 510, and RL); a second capacitor (Fig. 5, CS2) connected between an end of one transmission line of the plurality of transmission lines and a circuit node of reference potential; (Fig. 5, see connection between T4 and ground via CS2 in modified Fig. 5 above) and a pair of input capacitors connected to the first and second balanced ports (Fig. 5, see connection between T1 and C1 and between T2 and C2 in modified Fig. 5 below) and ground (Fig. 5, see connection between C1 and C2 and ground).
Regarding claim 10, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein the one transmission line of the plurality of transmission lines is a fourth transmission line (Van de Hiden, Fig. 5, see T4 in modified Fig. 5 above), and the balun circuit further includes: a first transmission line (Fig. 5, see T1 in modified Fig. 5 above) having one end connected to the first balanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T1 and 202 in modified Fig. 5 above); a second transmission line (Fig. 5, see T2 in modified Fig. 5 above) having one end connected to the second balanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T2 and 202 in modified Fig. 5 above); and a third transmission line (Fig. 5, see T3 in modified Fig. 5 above) having one end connected to the unbalanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T3, 510, and RL in modified Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 12, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein the first through fourth transmission lines each have an electrical length of 90 degrees or less (Van de Hiden, Paragraph 90, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Van de Hiden discloses:
A wireless communication device (Van de Hiden, Figs. 5 and 15) comprising: a processor (Fig. 15, 1501); a radio frequency (RF) transceiver (Fig. 15, 1503) configured to convert a digital signal generated by the processor into an RF signal (Paragraph 101, lines 1-5); front end circuitry (Fig. 15, 1506 and 1508); and an antenna (Fig. 15, VOUT(t), wherein the front end circuitry includes: a power amplifier (Fig. 5, 202) configured to amplify the RF signal to provide an amplified RF signal including first and second differential signals at first and second balanced ports, respectively (Fig. 5, consider differential outputs of 202); and an output matching network (Fig. 5, 502) including: an unbalanced port (Fig. 5, 510) at which an unbalanced output signal is output to a load (Fig. 5, see connection between 510 and RL); a balun circuit (Fig. 5, 502) including a plurality of transmission lines (Fig. 5, see T1, T2, T3, and T4 in modified Fig. 5 above) that receive the first and second differential signals (Fig. 5, see connection between T1, T2, and 202 in modified Fig. 5 above), wherein the balun circuit converts the first and second differential signals to the unbalanced output signal at the unbalanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T3, T4, and 510 in modified Fig. 5 above); a first capacitor (Fig. 5, CS1) connected to the unbalanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between CS1, 510, and RL); and a second capacitor (Fig. 5, CS2) connected between an end of one transmission line of the plurality of transmission lines and a point of reference potential (Fig. 5, see connection between T4 and ground via CS2 in modified Fig. 5 above), wherein the antenna is configured to transmit the unbalanced output signal, (Fig. 15, see connection between antenna at VOUT(t) and power amplifiers 1506/1508) and wherein the pair of balanced ports are connected to a pair of input capacitors (Fig. 5, see connection between T1 and C1 and between T2 and C2 in modified Fig. 5 below) connected to the ground (Fig. 5, see connection between C1 and C2 and ground).
Regarding claim 17, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein the one transmission line of the plurality of transmission lines is a fourth transmission line (Van de Hiden, Fig. 5, see T4 in modified Fig. 5 above), and the balun circuit further includes: a first transmission line (Fig. 5, see T1 in modified Fig. 5 above) having one end connected to the first balanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T1 and 202 in modified Fig. 5 above); a second transmission line (Fig. 5, see T2 in modified Fig. 5 above) having one end connected to the second balanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T2 and 202 in modified Fig. 5 above); and a third transmission line (Fig. 5, see T3 in modified Fig. 5 above) having one end connected to the unbalanced port (Fig. 5, see connection between T3, 510, and RL in modified Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 18, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein the load includes the antenna (Van de Hiden, Fig. 15, consider antenna at VOUT(t)).
Regarding claim 20, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein the first through fourth transmission lines each have an electrical length of 90 degrees or less (Van de Hiden, Paragraph 90, lines 1-2).
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 2, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van de Hiden.
Regarding claim 2, Van de Hiden fails to disclose:
wherein a capacitance of the first capacitor differs from a capacitance of the second capacitor.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Van de Hiden to make the first capacitor have a different capacitance than the second capacitor because it would have been obvious to try. When implementing the disclosed circuit of Van de Hiden, there would be only two options for the relationship between the first and second capacitances: the capacitances being the same, or the capacitances being different. The circuit of Van de Hiden is asymmetric on the side of the first and second capacitances, and therefore it would have been reasonable to expect that different capacitance values would provide optimum signal conversion.
Regarding claim 11, Van de Hiden fails to disclose:
wherein a capacitance of the first capacitor differs from a capacitance of the second capacitor.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Van de Hiden to make the first capacitor have a different capacitance than the second capacitor because it would have been obvious to try. When implementing the disclosed circuit of Van de Hiden, there would be only two options for the relationship between the first and second capacitances: the capacitances being the same, or the capacitances being different. The circuit of Van de Hiden is asymmetric on the side of the first and second capacitances, and therefore it would have been reasonable to expect that different capacitance values would provide optimum signal conversion.
Regarding claim 19, Van de Hiden fails to disclose:
wherein a capacitance of the first capacitor differs from a capacitance of the second capacitor.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Van de Hiden to make the first capacitor have a different capacitance than the second capacitor because it would have been obvious to try. When implementing the disclosed circuit of Van de Hiden, there would be only two options for the relationship between the first and second capacitances: the capacitances being the same, or the capacitances being different. The circuit of Van de Hiden is asymmetric on the side of the first and second capacitances, and therefore it would have been reasonable to expect that different capacitance values would provide optimum signal conversion.
Claims 4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van de Hiden as applied to claims 1 (for claims 4 and 7) and 10 (for claim 13) above, and further in view of Ilkov et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2007/0057745 A1), hereafter referred to as Ilkov.
Regarding claim 4, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein the first and third transmission lines are electromagnetically coupled to one another (Van de Hiden, Fig. 5, see connection between T1 and T3 in modified Fig. 5 above), and the second and fourth transmission lines are electromagnetically coupled to one another (Fig. 5, see connection between T2 and T4 in modified Fig. 5 above), but fails to disclose and [the first and third transmission lines] are disposed parallel to each other in a horizontal or vertical direction, and [the second and fourth transmission lines] are disposed parallel to each other in the horizontal or vertical direction.
However, Ilkov teaches and [the first and third transmission lines] are disposed parallel to each other in a horizontal or vertical direction (Ilkov, Fig. 8, see vertically parallel lines 1012 and 1004), and [the second and fourth transmission lines] are disposed parallel to each other in the horizontal or vertical direction (Fig. 8, see vertically parallel lines 1016 and 1008).
Van de Hiden and Ilkov are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Van de Hiden to incorporate the teachings of Ilkov to implement the transformer of Van de Hiden with the layout structure of the transformer of Ilkov, which would have the effect of providing a transformer that can be implemented on a printed circuit board (Ilkov, Paragraph 7, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Van de Hiden fails to disclose:
wherein another end of each of the first and second transmission lines is grounded.
However, Ilkov teaches wherein another end of each of the first and second transmission lines is grounded (Ilkov, Fig. 8, see connection between 1012, 1016, and ground).
Van de Hiden and Ilkov are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Van de Hiden to incorporate the teachings of Ilkov to implement the transformer of Van de Hiden with the layout structure of the transformer of Ilkov, which would have the effect of providing a transformer that can be implemented on a printed circuit board (Ilkov, Paragraph 7, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, Van de Hiden further discloses:
wherein the first and third transmission lines are electromagnetically coupled to one another (Van de Hiden, Fig. 5, see connection between T1 and T3 in modified Fig. 5 above) and the second and fourth transmission lines are electromagnetically coupled to one another (Fig. 5, see connection between T2 and T4 in modified Fig. 5 above) but fails to disclose and [the first and third transmission lines] disposed parallel to each other in a horizontal or vertical direction, and [the second and fourth transmission lines] disposed parallel to each other in the horizontal or vertical direction.
However, Ilkov teaches and [the first and third transmission lines] disposed parallel to each other in a horizontal or vertical direction (Ilkov, Fig. 8, see vertically parallel lines 1012 and 1004), and [the second and fourth transmission lines] disposed parallel to each other in the horizontal or vertical direction (Fig. 8, see vertically parallel lines 1016 and 1008).
Van de Hiden and Ilkov are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Van de Hiden to incorporate the teachings of Ilkov to implement the transformer of Van de Hiden with the layout structure of the transformer of Ilkov, which would have the effect of providing a transformer that can be implemented on a printed circuit board (Ilkov, Paragraph 7, lines 1-6).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van de Hiden as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above, and further in view of Yao (Patent Publication Number CN 108,879,057 A), hereafter referred to as Yao.
Regarding claim 6, Van de Hiden fails to disclose:
wherein an odd-mode characteristic impedance and an even-mode characteristic impedance of each of the first through fourth transmission lines are adjusted based on the first and second capacitors.
However, Yao teaches wherein an odd-mode characteristic impedance and an even-mode characteristic impedance of each of the first through fourth transmission lines are adjusted based on the first and second capacitors (Yao, Page 4, lines 22-28).
Van de Hiden and Yao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Van de Hiden to incorporate the teachings of Yao to modify the odd and even mode characteristic impedances of the transmission lines of Van de Hiden based on the capacitors of Van de Hiden, which would have the effect of optimizing circuit performance (Yao, Page 4, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 15, Van de Hiden fails to disclose:
wherein an odd-mode characteristic impedance and an even-mode characteristic impedance of each of the first through fourth transmission lines are adjusted based on the first and second capacitors.
However, Yao teaches wherein an odd-mode characteristic impedance and an even-mode characteristic impedance of each of the first through fourth transmission lines are adjusted based on the first and second capacitors (Yao, Page 4, lines 22-28).
Van de Hiden and Yao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Van de Hiden to incorporate the teachings of Yao to modify the odd and even mode characteristic impedances of the transmission lines of Van de Hiden based on the capacitors of Van de Hiden, which would have the effect of optimizing circuit performance (Yao, Page 4, lines 22-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qureshi (Patent Publication Number US 2017/0077873 A1) discloses (Fig. 6) a transmission line transformer balun for output matching for a power amplifier.
Serebryakova et al “Reconstruction Filters for Switched-Mode Power Amplifier Systems” discloses (Fig. 2) a transmission line transformer with less than 90 degree transmission lines.
Qiu et al. (Patent Publication Number WO 2023/005458 A1) discloses (Fig. 5) a power amplifier with input capacitors directly connected to the balanced ports of a balun.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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