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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "collector terminal" of claim 17 line 2 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brewer (US 20230140451 A1), hereafter referred to as “Brewer”.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 14 and 16, in the embodiment of Fig. 3A, Brewer discloses:
A dual-amplifier system (amplifier package 100), wherein the dual-amplifier system comprises a balanced amplifier (paragraph [0051], lines 1-3, amplifier package 100 may be a balanced amplifier per claim 2), comprising:
a first amplifier (transistor amplifiers 115) having an output impedance at a first output terminal (115 drain);
a second amplifier (transistor amplifier 114) having the output impedance (output prematch circuits 135 may be configured to perform output impedance matching (i.e. output impedances of 114 and 115)) at a second output terminal (114 drain);
a quadrature hybrid combiner (quadrature hybrid coupler 118_2) having a through port impedance (paragraph [0008], port 2 is a through port) and a coupled port impedance (paragraph [0008], port 3 is a coupled port) each equaling an intermediate impedance that is greater than the output impedance and having an output port impedance equaling a load impedance (Fig. 3A, characteristic impedance 117 may be a resistor (i.e. load) that can be implemented by different elements for different impedance values, per paragraph [0069]) that is greater than the intermediate impedance, wherein a quadrature hybrid splitter (quadrature hybrid coupler 118_1) configured to split a radio frequency (RF) input signal (paragraph [0057] lines 9-12) into a first and second RF signal that are coupled and amplified from the first and second amplifier (via first and second output terminals) to the coupled port and through port of the quadrature hybrid combiner (per claims 9, 12, and 16), and wherein an isolated port (paragraph [0008], port 4 may be referred to as an isolated port) of the quadrature hybrid combiner is coupled to ground through a load (characteristic impedance 117 to ground, as shown in Fig. 3A) having an impedance that is less than the output impedance (paragraph [0071] lines 7-10, isolated port of 18_2 may vary depending on which port of quadrature hybrid coupler 118_1 receives the RF input signal 111 per claim 14);
a first impedance matching network (bottom output prematch circuit 135) coupled between the first output terminal and a coupled port of the quadrature hybrid combiner (port 3, as shown in Fig. 3A), wherein the first impedance matching network is configured to match the output impedance to the intermediate impedance (impedance matching networks are known in the art to match input or output impedances); and
a second impedance matching network (top output prematch circuit 135) coupled between the second output terminal and a through port of the quadrature hybrid combiner (port 2, as shown in Fig. 3A), wherein the second impedance matching network is configured to match the output impedance to the intermediate impedance.
Regarding claims 4-6, in the embodiment of Fig. 3A, Brewer discloses:
the quadrature hybrid combiner is configured for a 1:N impedance transformation such that the load impedance is N times greater than the intermediate impedance, wherein N is a real positive number greater than one, wherein N equals two (Fig. 3A, paragraph [0070] lines 6-11, with a 12.5Ω or 25Ω impedance parallel devices could be combined with 2:1 or 4:1 balun transformers, where 2 can be N, per claims 4 and 5) and the load impedance is 50 ohms (paragraph [0069] lines 6-7, characteristic impedance 117 may be a 50Ω resistor, per claim 6).
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 3, 10, 13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer (US 20230140451 A1) in view of MARTIN (WO 2021144017 A1), hereafter referred to as “Brewer” and “MARTIN”, respectively.
Regarding claims 3, 13, 20, in the embodiment of Fig. 3A, Brewer discloses:
an isolated of the quadrature hybrid combiner port (paragraph [0008], port 4 may be referred to as an isolated port), the dual-amplifier system comprising a load-modulated balanced amplifier (paragraph [0051]).
However, Brewer is silent in teaching an auxiliary signal from an auxiliary amplifier coupled to the isolated port.
MARTIN teaches:
auxiliary signal from an auxiliary amplifier coupled to the isolated port (Fig. 1A, Auxiliary Drive Signal to amplifier 150 to port 134, analogously peak amplifier 330 in Fig. 3 is connected to isolated port 310d of the hybrid coupler 310).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the output of isolated port as taught by Brewer (Fig. 3A) to include the auxiliary amplifier as taught by MARTIN (Figs. 1A and 3) to cancel the load pull of the first and second amplifiers (MARTIN, Page 16, lines 4-5), thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a combination.
Regarding claims 10, 15, 17, 18 and 19, in the embodiment of Fig. 3A, Brewer discloses:
a wireless communication device (BACKGROUND, paragraph [0002], the device relates to radio frequency (“RF”) transistor amplifiers, RF is inherently wireless as known in the art, per claim 10), comprising the first and second output terminals (claim 17), wherein
coupling the RF output signal through the impedance matching network to the load comprises coupling the RF output signal through impedance matching network (output prematch circuit 135, top and bottom, may be used to output to a load (i.e. characteristic impedance 117) and/or output through either leads 130_1 and/or 130_2, as shown in Fig. 3B, per claim 15), and wherein
the quadrature hybrid combiner includes an output port (port 4 of 118_2 is shown as an output port, per claims 18 and 19) having an output port impedance that is greater than the output impedance and less than a load impedance (paragraphs [0069]-[0070], interstage matches can utilize other than 50Ω (e.g. 125 or 25Ω), while characteristic impedance 117 may be a 50Ω resistor), the dual-amplifier system further comprising: an impedance transforming network (Figs. 3A and 3B, output prematch circuit 135, per claim 18).
However, Brewer is silent in teaching, the dual-amplifier, wherein the output terminals each comprises a collector terminal and is within a transceiver, an impedance transforming network coupled to the output port and configured to match the output port impedance to the load impedance, and further comprising at least one antenna coupled to the output port through the impedance transforming network.
MARTIN teaches:
at least one antenna (BACKGROUND page 1, lines 14-20, mentions the load is an antenna load (e.g. output load 360)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the output port as taught by Brewer to include the antenna as taught by Martin and be within a transceiver, as it is well known in the art for a wireless communication device to comprise of a transceiver as well as antenna, furthermore it would be obvious for an impedance transforming network as taught by Brewer (Figs. 3A and 3B) to be connected to the output port and to the load impedance to match output impedance as it is known in the art to match an output impedance of an entire circuit such as the circuit taught by Brewer, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a combination. It would be further obvious to replace the amplifier transistors as taught by Brewer to be replaced with bipolar transistors so that the output terminals comprises collector terminals, as it is common in the art to make such a modification, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 11:
the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, “the quadrature hybrid combiner includes a first inductor coupled between an output port and a coupled port and includes a second inductor coupled between a through port and an isolated port” per claim 7, and “the quadrature hybrid combiner further includes a first coupling capacitor coupling between ground and the through port and includes a second coupling capacitor coupling between ground and the isolated port” per claim 11.
Claim 8 is allowed due to dependency on object to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALANE LIENG whose telephone number is (571) 272-5739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CST.
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 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.
/Malane Lieng/ Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights