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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment/arguments filed on 12/19/2025. This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
Application Publication No. 2023/0019152 to Woo et al. (hereinafter "Woo"). The Office action asserts that the claim limitation "the current sense differential output voltage being independent of filter characteristics of the TIA" is not clearly defined in the claim and therefore Woo teaches that limitation. Applicant respectfully disagrees with that characterization of the claim limitation. Instead applicant maintains that one of ordinary skill would clearly understand the meaning of that limitation given its ordinary meaning and certainly as described in the specification and further understand that Woo fails to teach at least that aspect of claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees:
The explanation, of “the current sense different output voltage being independent of filter characteristics of the TIA”, is not cited in the claim. It is suggested that some this explanation be claimed in order to overcome the rejection.
The limitations in questions have all been addressed as stated above
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-21 are allowed.
Claims 2-9 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 20230019152 A1).
Claim 1. Woo et al. A method (read as a method of operating wireless circuitry in a plurality of radio-frequency bands [0007]) comprising:
receiving a differential input current at a transimpedance amplifier (TIA) (read as transimpedance amplifier 54 may be differential circuits having differential input terminals and differential output terminals [0045]. FIG. 5) with
input current sensing (transimpedance amplifiers convert input current to output voltage consequently the must sense the input current.) in a base-band portion of a receiver chain of a radio frequency (RF) receiver (FIG. 5, input of the transimpedance amplifier, item 54, are part of the base-band since they are generated after the down conversion by the mixer); and
generating a current sense differential output voltage on a first output node and a second output node of the TIA (read as transimpedance amplifier 54 may be differential circuits having differential input terminals and differential output terminals [0045]. FIG. 5), the current sense differential output voltage corresponding to the differential input current to the TIA and the current sense differential output voltage (read as transimpedance amplifier 54 may be differential circuits having differential input terminals and differential output terminals [0045]. FIG. 5) being independent of filter characteristics of the TIA.
Woo et al. do not explicitly disclose: output voltage being independent of filter characteristics of the TIA. However, this term is not clearly defined in the instant claim as a result it is being interpreted as a wideband transimpedance amplifier as disclosed by Woo et al.: Amplifier 54 may be a multi-band, wideband transimpedance amplifier [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to the teaching of Woo et al. in order to handle a wide range of radio-frequency bands. For example, receiver block RX may be operated in a first mode to handle wireless communications in a first radio-frequency band group from about 0.6 to 1 GHz, in a second mode to handle wireless communications in a second radio-frequency band group from about 1 to 1.8 GHz, in a third mode to handle wireless communications in a third radio-frequency band group from about 1.8 to 2.3 GHz, in a fourth mode to handle wireless communications in a fourth radio-frequency band group from about 2.3 to 2.9 GHz, and so on up to 7 GHz or greater (Woo et al. [0044]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED RACHEDINE whose telephone number is (571)272-9249. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J. Parker can be reached at (571)270-3647. 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.
MOHAMMED . RACHEDINE
Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/MOHAMMED RACHEDINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646