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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 08/23/2023 has been considered.
Drawing Objections
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, “…wherein at least one of the switches in the set of switches is closed and at least one of the switches in the set of switches is open” of claim 20, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopez et al. (hereinafter Lopez), U.S. Patent 5,132,647.
Regarding Claim 1, Lopez teaches, a transformer (Fig. 21) comprising:
a first coil (L1, L2) extending from a first terminal (terminal between C3,L1) to a second terminal (terminal between C4, L2), the first coil having a center tap (center tap between L1, L2);
a second coil (L3) extending from a third terminal (third terminal of L3) to a fourth terminal (fourth terminal of L3), the second coil being magnetically coupled to the first coil; and
a first capacitor (C1) coupled between a reference potential (V1) and a first point (not labeled) on the first coil, the first point being between the center tap and the first terminal (id.). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Lopez further teaches, further comprising: a second capacitor (C2) coupled between the reference potential and a second point (not labeled) on the first coil, the second point being between the center tap and the second terminal (id.). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 7).
Regarding Claim 14 , Lopez teaches, a radio-frequency transceiver (Fig. 21) (“[f]ilter devices are currently used in all transmission, teledistribution, radio broadcasting and radio linkage systems, as in all other systems which need to select and obtain information contained in a specific frequency segment. This invention can be used in all of these systems” comprises a radio-frequency transceiver) comprising:
an input stage (L1, L2, VI, C1-C4);
an output stage (L3, VO, C5); and
a transformer (L1-L3) coupled between the input stage and the output stage, wherein the transformer includes
a first coil (L1, L2) coupled to the input stage and having a center tap (center tap between L1, L2),
a second coil (L3) coupled to the output stage, the second coil being magnetically coupled to the first coil, and
a capacitor array (C1-C5) coupled to the first coil around the center tap (id.). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 7).
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 of this title, 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 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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez, as applied to claim 1, in view of Oliaei et al., (hereinafter Oliaei), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0081203.
Regarding Claim 3 and similarly claim 4, Lopez teaches including multiple capacitors (“narrower bands can be obtained by increasing the number of balanced branch resonant circuits or by introducing resonant elements in the symmetrisation input or output circuits as shown in FIG. 21. It also shows a circuit whereby C1, C2 and the corresponding sections L1 and L2 form a symmetrisation input circuit”). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 7).
Lopez does not explicitly teach, further comprising: a third capacitor coupled between the reference potential and a third point on the first coil, the third point being between the first point and the first terminal.
However, Oliaei (Fig. 3D) teaches, further comprising: a third capacitor (not shown, “it may be necessary to AC couple taps 390a and 390b to other components (e.g., subsequent stages) via coupling capacitors” [0038]) coupled between the reference potential and a third point (366b) on the first coil, the third point being between the first point (366b) and the first terminal (“transformers 302, 322, 342, 362, and/or 382 may include any suitable number of taps and inputs” [0039]). (Oliaei: Figs. 3D and 3E, para. [0035], [0038], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transformer of Lopez to include the third capacitor coupled between the reference potential and a third point on the first coil, between the first point and the first terminal of Oliaei, the motivation being to “[permit] signal transformation for multiple frequency bands…using a single transformer structure” [0045]. (Oliaei: Figs. 3D and 3E, para. [0036]). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 3 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5 and similarly claim 6, the combination of Lopez in view of Oliaei further teaches, wherein the first terminal is coupled to a first signal line (the first signal line of the terminal between C3,L1) of an input path (the input path of the terminal between C3,L1), the second terminal is coupled to a second signal line (the second signal line of terminal between C4, L2) of the input path, and the first signal line and the second signal line form a differential pair of signal lines (id.). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 59-65).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Lopez in view of Oliaei further teaches, wherein the third terminal is coupled to a third signal line of a single-ended output path and the fourth terminal is coupled to the reference potential (it would have been obvious to try, since the teachings of Lopez in view of Oliaei discloses (Fig. 21) a single output path (Vo) and a reference potential (ground)). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 59-65).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Lopez in view of Oliaei further teaches, wherein the primary coil comprises first conductive traces (Oliaei, not shown) on a substrate (Oliaei, not shown, “a semiconductor chip” [0028]) and the secondary coil comprises second conductive traces (Oliaei, not shown) on the substrate (“a semiconductor chip” [0028]) (Oliaei: “FIGS. 3A-3E may be integrated on a semiconductor chip” [0028], “integrated on a semiconductor chip (e.g., in a CMOS process), and thus may be referred to as integrated transformers” [0003]), the motivation being to “include a multi-band transmitter with a reduced number of integrated transformers, as compared with traditional transmitters” [0008]. (Oliaei: Figs. 3D and 3E, para. [0003], [0008], [0028]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez, as applied to claim 1, in view of Hino, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0141752.
Regarding Claim 13, Lopez teaches including multiple capacitors (“narrower bands can be obtained by increasing the number of balanced branch resonant circuits or by introducing resonant elements in the symmetrisation input or output circuits as shown in FIG. 21. It also shows a circuit whereby C1, C2 and the corresponding sections L1 and L2 form a symmetrisation input circuit”). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 7).
Lopez does not explicitly teach, further comprising a switch coupled in series with the first capacitor between the first point and the reference potential.
However, Hino (Fig. 7D) teaches, further comprising a switch (SW3) coupled in series with the first capacitor (C7) between the first point (P2) and the outer electrode (P1). (Hino: Figs. 7B-7E, para. [0090], [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transformer of Lopez to include the switch coupled in series with the first capacitor of Hino, the motivation being “the overall capacitance including a capacitor C7 is changed by an off capacitance of a bipolar transistor by turning off a switch SW3 on the basis of a control signal inputted to the third outer electrode P3 (base)” [0093]. (Hino: Figs. 7B-7E, para. [0093]). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 13 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez, as applied to claim 14, in view of Akhtar et al., (hereinafter Akhtar), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0142036.
Regarding Claim 18, Lopez is silent on the transformer including the input stage comprising mixer circuitry, the output stage comprising an amplifier, and the center tap configured to receive a voltage. (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 7).
Lopez does not explicitly teach, wherein the input stage comprises mixer circuitry, the output stage comprises an amplifier, and the center tap is configured to receive a voltage.
However, Akhtar (Fig. 1) teaches, wherein the input stage comprises mixer (18) circuitry, the output stage comprises an amplifier (30) , and the center tap (CT_P, Fig. 12) is configured to receive a voltage (“a center tap (CT_P for the primary, and CT_S for the secondary) which, for differential signals, is connected to the common mode voltage (typically ground or supply)” [0027]). (Akhtar: Figs. 1-5 and 12, para. [0024], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transformer of Lopez to include the input stage comprising mixer circuitry, the output stage comprising an amplifier, and the center tap configured to receive a voltage of Akhtar, the motivation being to provide “a typical wireless communication transmitter (TX) arrangement” [0024]). (Akhtar: Figs. 1-5 and 12, para. [0024]). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 18 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliaei, in view of Lopez.
Regarding Claim 19, Oliaei teaches, (except where italicized), an electronic device (Fig. 3D) comprising:
a substrate (not shown, “a semiconductor chip” [0028]) (Oliaei: “FIGS. 3A-3E may be integrated on a semiconductor chip” [0028], “integrated on a semiconductor chip (e.g., in a CMOS process);
an input path (in+, in-) having a first signal line (366a) on the substrate and a second signal line (366a) on the substrate;
an output path (out+, out-) having a third signal line (370a) on the substrate;
a transformer (362) on the substrate (“FIGS. 3A-3E may be integrated on a semiconductor chip” [0028]), wherein the transformer includes
a first coil (364) having a first terminal (in+) coupled to the first signal line, a second terminal (in-) coupled to the second signal line, and a center tap contact (366c) (“transformers 302, 322, 342, 362, and/or 382 may include any suitable number of taps and inputs” [0039]), and
a second coil (368) having a third terminal (out+) coupled to the third signal line; and
a set of capacitors coupled in parallel between a set of points on the first coil and a reference potential, the set of points being between the center tap contact and the first terminal. (Oliaei: Figs. 3D and 3E, para. [0003], [0008], [0028]).
Oliaei does not explicitly teach, a set of capacitors coupled in parallel between a set of points on the first coil and a reference potential, the set of points being between the center tap contact and the first terminal.
However, Lopez (Fig. 21) teaches, a set of capacitors (C1, C2) coupled in parallel between a set of points on the first coil (L1, L2) and a reference potential (Vi), the set of points being between the center tap contact and the first terminal (terminal between C3,L1) (“narrower bands can be obtained by increasing the number of balanced branch resonant circuits or by introducing resonant elements in the symmetrisation input or output circuits as shown in FIG. 21. It also shows a circuit whereby C1, C2 and the corresponding sections L1 and L2 form a symmetrisation input circuit”). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transformer of Oliaei to include the set of capacitors including a set of points being between the center tap contact and the first terminal of Lopez, the motivation being “narrower bands can be obtained by increasing the number of balanced branch resonant circuits or by introducing resonant elements in the symmetrisation input or output circuits”). (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, lines 59-63). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 19 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliaei, as applied to claim 19, in view of Lopez.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Oliaei in view of Lopez is silent on including the set of switches being coupled in series with a respective capacitor from the set of capacitors between the reference potential and a respective point from the set of points, wherein at least one of the switches in the set of switches is closed and at least one of the switches in the set of switches is open. (Lopez: Figs. 1, 11 and 21, col. 7, line 58 to col. 8, line 7).
The combination of Oliaei in view of Lopez does not explicitly teach, further comprising: a set of switches, each switch in the set of switches being coupled in series with a respective capacitor from the set of capacitors between the reference potential and a respective point from the set of points, wherein at least one of the switches in the set of switches is closed and at least one of the switches in the set of switches is open.
However, Hino (Fig. 7D) teaches (except where italicized), further comprising: a set of switches (SW3), each switch in the set of switches being coupled in series with a respective capacitor (C7) from the set of capacitors between the outer electrode (P1) and a respective point (P2) from the set of points, wherein at least one of the switches in the set of switches is closed and at least one of the switches in the set of switches is open. (Hino: Figs. 7B-7E, para. [0090], [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transformer of Oliaei to include the set of switches being coupled in series with a respective capacitor from the set of capacitors between the outer electrode and a respective point from the set of points of Hino, the motivation being “the overall capacitance including a capacitor C7 is changed by an off capacitance of a bipolar transistor by turning off a switch SW3 on the basis of a control signal inputted to the third outer electrode P3 (base)” [0093]. (Hino: Figs. 7B-7E, para. [0093]). Further, it is obvious to try to couple a reference potential to the outer electrode (P1) or to have one set of switches open and another set of switches closed as one of a finite group of configurations for multiple sets of switches. Therefore, the limitations of Claim 20 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andersson et al. (US 20140266506), Kim et al. (US 20200395158), Yen et al. (US 20120146741) and Zhuo et al. (US 20130295870).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-12 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if any of claims 9 and 15 are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 recites, inter alia, “…wherein the first conductive traces comprise a first segment, a second segment extending from a first end of the first segment to the first terminal, and a third segment extending from a second end of the first segment to the second terminal, the center tap and the point being coupled to the first segment”. (Emphasis added).
Claim 15 recites, inter alia, “…wherein the first coil extends from a first terminal to a second terminal, the first terminal and the second terminal are coupled to the input stage, and the capacitor array comprises: a first set of switchable capacitors coupled in parallel between a first set of points on the first coil and a reference potential, the first set of points being between the center tap and the first terminal; and a second set of switchable capacitors coupled in parallel between a second set of points on the first coil and the reference potential, the second set of points being between the center tap and the second terminal”. (Emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM BARNES whose telephone number is (408)918-7512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (PST).
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached on 571-272-3985. 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.
/MALCOLM BARNES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights