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 .
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) 1, 2, 4-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granger-Jones et al. (US 2019/0267956) in view of Hahn et al. (US 2011/0212696).
Referring to Claim 1, Granger-Jones teaches a power amplifier system with interference cancellation, the power amplifier system comprising:
an array of antennas comprising a first antenna and a second antenna (see fig. 1 which shows PA apparatus with antennas 18 and 20);
a transmit signal path comprising a power amplifier, the power amplifier configured to drive the first antenna (see fig. 3A which shows PA 48 and antenna 60 along transmit path 54);
a radio frequency coupler in a signal path between the power amplifier and the first antenna (see coupler 66 in fig. 3A between PA 48 and antenna 60), the radio frequency coupler configured to generate an interfering power signal (see paragraph 51 which shows reverse power and reflected power generated at the coupler which degrades the RF signal); and an interference cancellation loop comprising an amplifier and a phase shifter (see fig. 3A which shows phase shifter 70 and amplifier 48 as part of an interference cancellation loop), the interference cancellation loop configured to receive the interfering power signal and to provide a cancellation signal to the transmit signal path to suppress interference at an output of the power amplifier (see paragraph 30 which shows how a reverse interference signal results in a reverse coupling circuit generating an interference cancellation signal which is then amplified by amplifier 48 to reduce interference), and the interference comprising an aggressor signal associated with the second antenna (see paragraph 30 which shows how the receiver interference signal is caused by another antenna).
Granger-Jones does not teach the power amplifier being outside of the interference cancellation loop, the interference cancellation loop being configured to apply the cancellation signal at an output side of the power amplifier. Hahn teaches the power amplifier being outside of the interference cancellation loop, the interference cancellation loop being configured to apply the cancellation signal at an output side of the power amplifier (see fig. 2 which shows PA 110 outside of cancellation loop 101 where the loop is coupled to the output of the PA). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Hahn to the device of Granger-Jones in order to better regulate power while mitigating interference.
Referring to Claim 2, Granger-Jones also teaches an interfering power monitoring circuit configured to enable the interference cancellation loop based on a power level of the interfering power signal (see paragraph 37 which shows the control circuit determining whether the rIMD exists based on power level and then activates the reverse coupling circuit).
Referring to Claim 4, Granger-Jones teaches a power amplifier system with interference cancellation, the power amplifier system comprising:
a transmit signal path comprising a power amplifier (see fig. 3A which shows PA 48 along transmit path 54);
an interference sensing circuit connected to an output of the power amplifier, the interference sensing circuit configured to output an interfering power signal (see paragraph 51 which shows reverse power and reflected power generated at the coupler which degrades the RF signal); and
an interference cancellation loop comprising an amplifier (see fig. 3A which shows amplifier 48 as part of an interference cancellation loop), the interference cancellation loop configured to receive the interfering power signal and to provide a cancellation signal to the transmit signal path to thereby suppress interference at the output of the power amplifier (see paragraph 30 which shows how a reverse interference signal results in a reverse coupling circuit generating an interference cancellation signal which is then amplified by amplifier 48 to reduce interference).
Granger-Jones does not teach the amplifier and power amplifier as different amplifiers. Hahn teaches the amplifier and power amplifier as different amplifiers (see fig. 2 which shows PA 110 outside of cancellation loop 101 and another amp 145 inside the cancellation loop). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Hahn to the device of Granger-Jones in order to better regulate power while mitigating interference.
Referring to Claim 5, Granger-Jones also teaches the interference cancellation loop further comprising a phase shifter, the interference cancellation loop configured to generate the cancellation signal by at least amplifying and phase shifting the interfering power signal using the amplifier and the phase shifter (see fig. 3A which shows phase shifter 70 and amplifier 48 as part of an interference cancellation loop and paragraph 30 which shows how a reverse interference signal results in a reverse coupling circuit generating an interference cancellation signal which is then amplified by amplifier 48 to reduce interference).
Referring to Claim 6, Granger-Jones also teaches the interference cancellation loop having a controllable gain, and the interference cancellation loop is configured to set the controllable gain to control an amplitude of the cancellation signal (see paragraph 30 which shows the interference cancellation signal generated with opposing amplitude relative to the interference signal).
Referring to Claim 7, Granger-Jones also teaches a radio frequency coupler 66 (fig. 3A).
Referring to Claim 8, Granger-Jones also teaches the radio frequency coupler configurable into a first state and a second state, the radio frequency coupler is configured to couple interfering power in the first state, and the radio frequency coupler is configured to couple forward power in the second state (see coupler 66 in fig. 3A operable in a FWD state for coupling forward power and REV state for coupling interfering power).
Referring to Claim 9, Granger-Jones also teaches an antenna array, the antenna array comprising a first antenna that is connected to the power amplifier by way of the interference sensing circuit (see array in fig. 1 with antennas 18 and 20 and fig. 3a which shows coupler/sensing circuit 66 in fig. 3A between PA 48 and antenna 60).
Referring to Claim 10, Granger-Jones also teaches interference associated with coupling of a second antenna of the antenna array and the first antenna (see paragraph 30 which shows how the receiver interference signal is caused by another antenna).
Referring to Claim 11, Granger-Jones also teaches reflected power associated with an impedance mismatch at the output of the power amplifier (see paragraph 51 which shows reflected power generated at the coupler at the output of the PA which degrades the RF signal).
Referring to Claim 12, Granger-Jones also teaches an interfering power monitoring circuit configured to enable the interference cancellation loop based on a power level of the interfering power signal (see paragraph 37 which shows the control circuit determining whether the rIMD exists based on power level and then activates the reverse coupling circuit).
Referring to Claim 13, Granger-Jones also teaches the interference cancellation loop configured to apply the cancellation signal to at an output side of the power amplifier (see paragraph 30 which shows the PA amplifying the interference cancellation signal which implies that the signal is output from the PA and therefore, applied to the output side of the PA).
Referring to Claim 14, Granger-Jones also teaches the interference cancellation loop configured to apply the cancellation signal to an input side of the power amplifier (see paragraph 30 which shows the PA amplifying the interference cancellation signal which implies that the signal is applies to the input of the PA).
Referring to Claim 15, Granger-Jones also teaches a second non-linearity cancellation loop configured to provide a non-linearity cancellation signal at the input side of the power amplifier (see paragraph 42 which shows the non-linearity of the circuit and fig. 5 which shows a second cancellation loop 40 (2)).
Referring to Claim 17, Granger-Jones teaches a method of interference cancellation in a power amplifier system, the method comprising:
sensing interference in a signal path between a power amplifier and a first antenna, the interference propagating in a direction toward an output of the power amplifier (see fig. 3A which shows coupler 66 between PA 48 and antenna 60 and paragraph 30 which shows the detecting of a reverse interference signal at the coupler along transmit path 54), the interference comprising an aggressor signal associated with a second antenna (see paragraph 30 which shows how the receiver interference signal is caused by another antenna); generating a cancellation signal based on the sensing; and applying the cancellation signal to a transmit signal path that includes the power amplifier to suppress the interference at the output of the power amplifier (see paragraph 30 which shows how a reverse interference signal results in a reverse coupling circuit generating an interference cancellation signal which is then amplified by amplifier 48 to reduce interference).
Granger-Jones does not teach amplifying, with amplifier different than the power amplifier, an interfering power signal associated with the sensing. Hahn teaches amplifying, with amplifier different than the power amplifier, an interfering power signal associated with the sensing (see fig. 2 which shows PA 110 outside of cancellation loop 101 and another amp 145 inside the cancellation loop). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Hahn to the device of Granger-Jones in order to better regulate power while mitigating interference.
Referring to Claim 18, Granger-Jones also teaches generating a coupled power signal using a radio frequency coupler (see paragraph 51 which shows reverse power and reflected power generated at the coupler which degrades the RF signal), and wherein the generating the cancellation signal comprises amplifying and phase shifting the coupled power signal (see fig. 3A which shows phase shifter 70 and amplifier 48 as part of an interference cancellation loop).
Referring to Claim 19, Granger-Jones also teaches generating a coupled power signal using a radio frequency coupler (see paragraph 51 which shows reverse power and reflected power generated at the coupler which degrades the RF signal), and the method further comprises enabling circuitry that performs the generating based on a power level of the coupled power signal (see paragraph 37 which shows the control circuit determining whether the rIMD exists based on power level and then activates the reverse coupling circuit).
Referring to Claim 20, Granger-Jones also teaches applying the cancellation signal at an output side of the power amplifier (see paragraph 30 which shows the PA amplifying the interference cancellation signal which implies that the signal is output from the PA and therefore, applied to the output side of the PA).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granger-Jones and Hahn and further in view of Gebara (WO 2005/050896).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination of Granger-Jones and Hahn does not teach the amplifier as a variable gain amplifier. Gebara teaches the amplifier as a variable gain amplifier (see VGA 260 in fig. 8 as part of cancellation loop 750a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Gebara to the modified device of Granger-Jones and Hahn in order to improve antenna performance by better regulating power.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granger-Jones and Hahn and further in view of Baik et al. (US 2010/0109771).
Referring to Claim 16, the combination of Granger-Jones and Hahn does not teach a radio frequency coupler and a digital predistortion circuit, the radio frequency coupler configured to provide a coupled power signal to the digital predistortion circuit, and the digital predistortion circuit configured to reduce non-linearity at the output of the power amplifier, wherein the coupled power signal is associated with power propagating from the output of the power amplifier to an antenna. Baik teaches a radio frequency coupler and a digital predistortion circuit, the radio frequency coupler configured to provide a coupled power signal to the digital predistortion circuit, and the digital predistortion circuit configured to reduce non-linearity at the output of the power amplifier, wherein the coupled power signal is associated with power propagating from the output of the power amplifier to an antenna (see fig. 9 which shows coupler feeding a signal to pre-distorter in the digital circuit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Baik to the modified device of Granger-Jones and Hahn in order to better reduce interference when using a feedback circuit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights