CTNF 18/434,539 CTNF 91895 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta et al. (US 2011/0140772) in view of Mobarak et al. (US 2021/0242835) . Regarding claim 1 , Sengupta teaches a method of self-healing for power amplifiers (PAs) that includes observing circuit behavior, extracting operational parameters, and applying corrective actions (§0025-§0026, Fig. 1 and Fig. 45, Fig. 51). It specifically teaches determining parameters to optimize performance metrics like Power Added Efficiency (PAE) and output power (§0122). It describes adjusting matching networks and bias settings to mitigate the impact of environmental factors such as changes in Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) , which is a direct result of load impedance variation (§0133) . It teaches storing these settings to a memory or machine-readable storage medium (§0204) to record results for self-healing operations. PNG media_image1.png 453 783 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 6 of Sengupta showing control parameters for self-healing of performances. While Sengupta teaches adjusting parameters for varying VSWR (impedance) conditions, it does not explicitly use the terminology "determining for a first impedance value" and "determining for a second impedance value" as a formal calibration sequence for later programming. Mobarak teaches adaptive bias circuits specifically designed to improve linearity by modifying bias signals provided to an amplifier. It emphasizes programming these bias arrangements for different operating conditions to overcome PVT (Process, Voltage, Temperature) variations, which inherently include load fluctuations in RF systems like phased antenna arrays. PNG media_image2.png 643 610 media_image2.png Greyscale Fig. 8 of Mobarak reproduced for ease of reference. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to combine Sengupta’s self-healing methodology for varying impedance (VSWR) with Mobarak’s adaptive bias programming. Since Sengupta already identifies VSWR as a trigger for re-tuning, formalizing this into a calibration method that stores parameters for multiple specific impedance values (first and second values) is a routine optimization of the self-healing loop. The motivation is to increase system reliability and efficiency . By pre-calculating and storing parameters for known impedance states, the system can react faster to environmental changes (like an object moving near an antenna) without needing to re-run the full "bulk search" optimization routine every time the VSWR changes. According to claim 17 , Sengupta teaches a self-healing power amplifier system that uses sensors to observe circuit performance and actuators (like matching networks) to adjust to environmental factors, specifically mentioning Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) changes. While Sengupta discusses tuning for VSWR (impedance) changes, it does not explicitly describe the system as being "configured to generate a first beam... and a second beam... having a different beam angle," and storing specific parameters for each. Mobarak teaches adaptive bias arrangements specifically for use in phased antenna arrays. Phased arrays, by definition, generate beams at various angles by shifting phases, which inherently causes load impedance variations due to mutual coupling between elements. A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would find it obvious to apply Sengupta’s self-healing tuning system (which handles VSWR/impedance variations) to a phased array system as described by Mobarak. Since Mobarak establishes that phased arrays operate with multiple beam angles that affect load conditions, configuring Sengupta's system to store specific parameters for those discrete beam/angle states is a logical application of the self-healing logic. The motivation is to ensure consistent power amplifier performance (linearity and efficiency) across the entire scanning range of a phased array, preventing degradation as the beam steers and the load impedance shifts. Further per claim 18 , Sengupta teaches a system comprising a power amplifier, an antenna array (load), and a control block (memory/processor). The system is configured to determine and store actuator settings to optimize performance metrics. It explicitly describes beams (implied using on-chip antennas and phased array discussions) and the need to tune matching networks based on the environment. Sengupta, however, does not explicitly state that the system determines different power amplifier parameters for a first beam and a second beam having different angles. Mobarak teaches that these adaptive bias arrangements are specifically intended for phased antenna arrays (e.g., 5G technology). In a phased array, different beam angles result in different "mutual coupling" effects, which change the effective impedance seen by each PA. A PHOSITA would recognize that in the phased arrays described by Mobarak, changing the beam angle changes the load impedance. Therefore, applying Sengupta’s method of tuning for different impedance/VSWR states to the specific use case of different beam angles in a phased array is a predictable application of known techniques. The motivation is to maintain linearity and power efficiency across all steering angles of a phased array. Storing beam-specific parameters allows the system to remain "self-healed" and optimized as the antenna scans through different directions. Regarding claims 2, 3, and 19 (Multi-core / Separately Programmable), Sengupta (Fig. 4, Fig. 13) teaches an integrated power amplifier with a divider and multiple "PA cores" or paths. Sengupta further teaches that each actuator (matching networks, bias) can be set independently. Thus, these claims are obvious over Sengupta, who describes a multi-core architecture where individual segments are tuned by the self-healing algorithm. Regarding claims 4, 11 (Phased Array / Beam Specifics), as established in the rejection of Claim 17, while Sengupta focuses on the PA, Mobarak explicitly places these types of circuits within the context of a phased antenna array. Thus, it would be Obvious over Sengupta in view of Mobarak to combining a self-healing PA with a phased array allows the system to pre-calibrate for the mutual coupling effects inherent in different beam angles. Regarding claims 5, 12, and 20 (Matching Network and Adaptive Bias), Sengupta explicitly mentions "actuators" comprising "matching networks". Mobarak’s entire disclosure is dedicated to "adaptive bias arrangements." Therefore, it would have been obvious over Sengupta in view of Mobarak because it is standard practice to tune both the bias and the matching network to optimize a PA for a specific load. Regarding c laims 6 and 13 (Iterative Determination), Sengupta explicitly teaches a process of "optionally repeating... as many times as desired... until a desired circuit performance metric is reached." Sengupta, thus, teaches a standard closed-loop iterative optimization. Regarding claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 (Efficiency and Linearity Metrics), Sengupta specifically cites "Power Added Efficiency (PAE)" as a performance metric. Mobarak’s title and focus are on "Improving Linearity." Therefore, it would have been obvious over Sengupta in view of Mobarak because PAE and linearity are the two primary design constraints for any RF power amplifier system. Regarding claims 9 and 16 (Look-Up Table / Memory) Sengupta teaches a "machine-readable storage medium" and storing "results for the self-healing operation." Using a Look-Up Table (LUT) to store these values for later retrieval based on a condition (like impedance or beam angle) is a notorious and routine data management technique in embedded systems. It would have been obvious over Sengupta in storing calibration constants in a memory/LUT for later use is a "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activity. Regarding claim 10 (Directly Programming Based on Impedance), Sengupta teaches setting new actuator settings based on sensor measurements (which include VSWR/impedance). Thus, Sengupta, as the "self-healing" loop's purpose would program the PA actuators directly in response to detected load changes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0659. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6. 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, Jessica Han can be reached on (571) 272-2078 . 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. /HAFIZUR RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843. Application/Control Number: 18/434,539 Page 2 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 18/434,539 Page 3 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 18/434,539 Page 4 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 18/434,539 Page 5 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 18/434,539 Page 6 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 18/434,539 Page 7 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 18/434,539 Page 8 Art Unit: 2843 Application/Control Number: 18/434,539 Page 9 Art Unit: 2843
Prosecution Insights