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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Specie I (Figures 4a-4b) in the reply filed on 07/12/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant indicates that claims 1-14 are readable on the elected Specie I (Figures 4a-4b). However, upon further reconsideration, only claims 1-6, 8-11 and 14 are readable on the elected Specie I (Figures 4a-4b). Note that claims 7 and 12-13 are not readable on the elected Specie I (Figures 4a-4b) because Figures 4a-4b does not have the thermistor (claim 7), the specific connection of the resistor, capacitor and inductor of the RLC circuit (claim 12), and the switch with the specific connection (claim 13). Thus, claims 1-6, 8-11 and 14 are examined in this office action and claims 7 and 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 7 and 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/12/26.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA on 01/18/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the “CN202210051858.5” application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-6, 8-11 and 14 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.
For claim 1, this claim is indefinite because “a power supply module” (line 3) is floating, and it is not clear how it is being connected to other elements in the circuit. Further, the recitation “an output end” on line 5 is indefinite because it is not clear if applicant means “an output end of the input matching module”. Further, the recitation “an input end of the power amplifier is connected with an input end of the output matching module” on line 9-10 is indefinite because “an input end of the power amplifier” in the above phrase is unclear antecedent basis (see line 5-6 which already recited “an input end of the power amplifier”), and it is also misdescriptive that “an input end of the power amplifier is connected with an input end of the output matching module” since the disclosure discloses that “an output end of the power amplifier is connected with an input end of the output matching module” (see Figure 2, where output end of the power amplifier 2 is connected with an input end of the output matching module 3). Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6, 8-11 and 14 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
For claim 8, the recitation “wherein the protection unit comprises a plurality of different-size filter capacitors” on line 3 causes the claim to be indefinite because claim 2 already recited that the protection unit comprises “one filter capacitor”, and thus it is not clear if “a plurality of different-size filter capacitors” recited in this claim are in additional to the “one filter capacitor” (recited in claim 2), or whether “a plurality of different-size filter capacitors” recited in this claim also includes the “one filter capacitor” (recited in claim 2). Further, the above recitation “wherein the protection unit comprises a plurality of different-size filter capacitors” is also indefinite because it is not known how the plural capacitors are connected in the claim. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Also, for claim 10, the recitation “a capacitor end” on line 7 is indefinite because it is not clear if it means “a capacitor end of the trap circuit”. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Also, for claim 11, the recitation “an inductor constituting an RLC combined circuit together with the current limiting resistor and the filter capacitor” (line 3-4) is indefinite because the connection of “an inductor” recited in the claim with the current limiting resistor and the filter capacitor is not clear. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0209728).
Insofar as understood in claims 1 and 14, Figure 1 (wherein the detail of each block in Figure 1 is shown in respective Figures 2, 3A-3B or 4) of Kim et al. teaches a radio frequency front-end module having a current protection function, comprising: an input matching module (100), a power amplifier (400, 200), an output matching module (300) and a power supply module (module generated Vcc in Figures 1-2-3A-3B-4, or module generated Vref in Figures 2 and 3A-3B, or module generated Vbat in Figure 4), and further comprising a protection unit (500), wherein an input end of the input matching module (100) is connected with an external radio frequency signal input end (RFin), and an output end of the input matching module (100) is connected with an input end (B) of the power amplifier (400, 200), so as to realize impedance matching between the power amplifier (400, 200) and the external radio frequency signal input end (RFin); the power amplifier (400, 200) is used for amplifying power of input radio frequency signals (RFin), and an output end (collector of 200) of the power amplifier (400, 200) is connected with an input end of the output matching module (300); an output end of the output matching module (300) is connected with a radio frequency signal output end (RFout), so as to realize power matching between the power amplifier (400, 200) and the radio frequency signal output end (RFout); and an output end (N1) of the protection unit (500) is connected with the power amplifier (400, 200), and current of the power amplifier (400, 200) is limited by a threshold voltage generated by the protection unit (500), so as to realize current protection. Note that Figure 1 of Kim et al. also meet claim 14 because it is an electronic circuit.
For claim 2, Figures 2 and 3A-3B of Kim et al. each teaches wherein the protection unit (500) comprises at least one current limiting resistor (R1) and one filter capacitor (C1), the current limiting resistor (R1) being used for generating the threshold voltage, and the filter capacitor (C1) being used for showing a low-resistance state at radio frequency and envelope signal frequency, such that the threshold voltage cannot change along with radio frequency signals and envelope signals.
For claim 3, Figures 2 and 3A-3B of Kim et al. each teaches wherein the protection unit (500) further comprises a trap circuit (Q1-Q3, R2, C2), the trap circuit (Q1-Q3, R2, C2) being connected with the filter capacitor (C1) in parallel (note that because the claim does not specifically recited of the components of the trap circuit, so for broadest reasonable interpretation, the circuit (Q1-Q3, R2, C2) functionally can block/trap unwanted current, see [0067], so it is reasonable to be “a trap circuit”).
For claim 4, Figure 1 of Kim et al. teaches wherein the power amplifier (400, 200) comprises at least one stage (400, 200) of power amplification unit (400, 200), the power amplification unit (400) comprises a bias circuit (400) and a power amplification circuit (200), and the protection unit (500) is at least connected with the bias circuit (400) of the at least one stage of power amplification unit (400, 200).
Claims 1-3, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takenaka et al. (US 2018/0287565).
Insofar as understood in claims 1 and 14, Figure 30 of Takenaka et al. teaches a radio frequency front-end module having a current protection function, comprising: an input matching module (506), a power amplifier (502, 500, 510-512, 503, 501), an output matching module (508) and a power supply module (112), and further comprising a protection unit (3100, 3000, 504, 3010, 505), wherein an input end of the input matching module (506) is connected with an external radio frequency signal input end (RFin), and an output end of the input matching module (506) is connected with an input end (input of 500) of the power amplifier (502, 500, 510-512, 503, 501), so as to realize impedance matching between the power amplifier (502, 500, 510-512, 503, 501) and the external radio frequency signal input end (RFin); the power amplifier (502, 500, 510-512, 503, 501) is used for amplifying power of input radio frequency signals (RFin), and an output end (output of 501) of the power amplifier (502, 500, 510-512, 503, 501) is connected with an input end of the output matching module (508); an output end of the output matching module (508) is connected with a radio frequency signal output end (RFout), so as to realize power matching between the power amplifier (502, 500, 510-512, 503, 501) and the radio frequency signal output end (RFout); and an output end (node connected 504 and 500, or node connected 505 and 501) of the protection unit (3100, 3000, 504, 3010, 505) is connected with the power amplifier (502, 500, 510-512, 503, 501), and current of the power amplifier (502, 500, 510-512, 503, 501) is limited by a threshold voltage generated by the protection unit (3100, 300, 504, 3010, 505), so as to realize current protection. Note that Figure 30 of Takenaka et al. also meet claim 14 because it is an electronic circuit.
For claim 2, Figure 30 of Takenaka et al. teaches wherein the protection unit (3100, 3000, 504, 3010, 505) comprises at least one current limiting resistor (3100, note that for broad reasonable interpretation, “ferrite bead” effectively acts as “a resistor” at high frequencies band) and one filter capacitor (3000), the current limiting resistor (3100) being used for generating the threshold voltage, and the filter capacitor (3000) being used for showing a low-resistance state at radio frequency and envelope signal frequency, such that the threshold voltage cannot change along with radio frequency signals and envelope signals.
For claim 3, Figure 30 of Takenaka et al. teaches wherein the protection unit (3100, 3000, 504, 3010, 505) further comprises a trap circuit (504), the trap circuit (3100, 3000, 504, 3010, 505) being connected with the filter capacitor (3000) in parallel.
For claim 11, Figure 30 of Takenaka et al. teaches wherein the protection unit (3100, 3000, 504, 3010, 505) further comprises an inductor (504) constituting an RLC combined circuit (3100, 3000, 504) together with the current limiting resistor (3100) and the filter capacitor (3000), to further filter the radio frequency signals and the envelope signals.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0209728).
For claim 8, Figures 2 and 3A-3B of Kim et al. each teaches wherein the protection unit (500) comprises a plurality of capacitors (C1 and C2). Kim et al. does not specifically recite that the plurality of capacitors (C1 and C2) are different-sizes capacitors so as to filter radio frequency signals and envelope signals different in frequency and realize broadband filtering. However, it is seen that the specific size of each capacitor of the plurality of capacitors the capacitors have different sizes is merely a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art at the time before the invention was effectively filed to modify the circuit of Kim et al. so that the plurality capacitors (C1 and C2 in Figures 2 and 3A-3B) of the protection unit (500) are different size capacitors for the purpose of optimize filtering performance for specific desired frequencies of the signals, depending on the need of the circuit designer since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, this modification, as discussed, meet the limitations “different-sizes capacitors so as to filter radio frequency signals and envelope signals different in frequency and realize broadband filtering” recited in claim 8.
Claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka et al. (US 2018/0287565).
For claim 8, Figure 30 of Takenaka et al. teaches wherein the protection unit (3100, 3000, 504, 3010, 505) comprises a plurality of capacitors (3000 and 3010). Takenaka et al. does not specifically recite that the plurality of capacitors (3000 and 3010) are different-sizes capacitors so as to filter radio frequency signals and envelope signals different in frequency and realize broadband filtering. However, it is seen that the specific size of each capacitor of the plurality of capacitors the capacitors have different sizes is merely a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art at the time before the invention was effectively filed to modify the circuit of Takenaka et al. so that the plurality capacitors (3000 and 3010 in Figure 30) of the protection unit (3100, 3000, 504, 3010, 505) are different size capacitors for the purpose of optimize filtering performance for specific desired frequencies of the signals, depending on the need of the circuit designer since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, this modification, as discussed, meet the limitations “different-sizes capacitors so as to filter radio frequency signals and envelope signals different in frequency and realize broadband filtering” recited in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directly to Examiner Long Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1753. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Regis Betsch, can be reached at (571) 270-7101. The fax number for this group is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information 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).
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.
/Long Nguyen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
