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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-10 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 9, 21-22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowyer et al. (US 5,982,165).
Regarding claim 9, Bowyer teaches Combiner circuitry (Fig. 1 and column 2, lines 33 – 62), a first input amplifier having a single-ended input coupled to a first antenna (Fig. 1, 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, and column 5, lines 26 - 59, where teaches a first input amplifier having single ended coupling to a first antenna), and a second input amplifier having a single-ended input coupled to a second antenna (Fig. 1, 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, abstract, and column 3, lines 20 – column 4, lines 47, where teaches a second input amplifier having single ended coupling to a second antenna), and
a second amplifier stage configured to receive radio-frequency signals from the first amplifier stage (Fig. 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, abstract, and column 3, lines 20 – column 4, lines 47, where teaches a second amplifier stage for receiving RF signals from a first amplifier stage).
Regarding claim 21, Bowyer teaches all the limitation as discussed in claim 9. Furthermore, Bowyer further teaches that with a first amplifier of the first amplifier stage, receiving radio-frequency signals from a first antenna (Fig. 1, 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, and column 5, lines 26 - 59, where teaches a first amplifier of first amplifier stage receiving RF signals from a first antenna), with a second amplifier of the first amplifier stage, receiving radio-frequency signals from a second antenna (Fig. 1, 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, and column 5, lines 26 - 59, where teaches a second amplifier of first amplifier stage receiving RF signals from a second antenna), and with the second amplifier stage, receiving radio-frequency signals from the first amplifier and the second amplifier (Fig. 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, abstract, and column 3, lines 20 – column 4, lines 47, where teaches a second amplifier stage for receiving RF signals from a first amplifier stage, first and second amplifier).
Regarding claim 22, Bowyer teaches that a mixer, receiving radio-frequency signals from the second amplifier stage (Fig. 2 and column 8, lines 5 – column 10, lines 4).
Regarding claim 26, Bowyer teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 9 and 21.
Regarding claim 27, Bowyer teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 9 and 21. Furthermore, Bowyer teaches that first single-ended coupled lines, conveying the radio-frequency signals received from the first antenna to the single-ended input of the first amplifier (Fig. 1, 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, and column 5, lines 26 – 59), and with a second single-ended coupled lines, conveying the radio-frequency signals received from the second antenna to the single-ended input of the second amplifier (Fig. 1, 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, and column 5, lines 26 – 59).
Regarding claim 28, Bowyer teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 9 and 21. Furthermore, Bowyer teaches that third single-ended coupled lines, conveying radio-frequency signals output from the first and second amplifiers to a single-ended input of the second amplifier stage (Fig. 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, abstract, and column 3, lines 20 – column 4, lines 47).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 10, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowyer in view of PERUMANA et al. (US 2017/0346506).
Regarding claim 10, Bowyer teaches all the limitation as discussed in claim 9. Furthermore, Bowyer does not specifically teach the limitation “a third input amplifier having a single-ended input coupled to a third antenna, and a fourth input amplifier having a single-ended input coupled to a fourth antenna”. However, PERUMANA teaches the limitation “a third input amplifier having a single-ended input coupled to a third antenna, and a fourth input amplifier having a single-ended input coupled to a fourth antenna” (Fig. 1 and pages 2, paragraphs 16 – pages 3, paragraphs 22, where teaches a third and fourth (and fifth ..) amplifier having a single ended input coupled to third and fourth antenna). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of the Bowyer’s radio communication architecture as taught by PERUMANA, provide the motivation to increasing throughput of radio frequency in communication device.
Regarding claim 13, Bowyer and PERUMANA teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 9 and 10.
Regarding claim 23, Bowyer and PERUMANA teach all the limitation as discussed in claims 9 and 10. Furthermore, Bowyer teaches that the first amplifier of the first amplifier stage, receiving radio-frequency signals from a third antenna different than the first and second antennas (Fig. 2, column 2, lines 22 – 62, abstract, and column 3, lines 20 – column 4, lines 47). Bowyer does not specifically teach the limitation “with the second amplifier of the first amplifier stage, receiving radio-frequency signals from a fourth antenna different than the first and second antennas”. However, PERUMANA teaches the limitation “with the second amplifier of the first amplifier stage, receiving radio-frequency signals from a fourth antenna different than the first and second antennas” (Fig. 1 and pages 2, paragraphs 16 – pages 3, paragraphs 22, where teaches receiving RF signals from a fourth antenna different than the first and second antennas to second amplifier of the first amplifier stage). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of the Bowyer’s radio communication architecture as taught by PERUMANA, provide the motivation to increasing throughput of radio frequency in communication device.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 17 and 19 are allowed.
7. Claims 12, 14-16, 24-25, and 29-31 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 prior art of record fails to disclose the limitation “the first pair of coupled lines comprises a first conductive path having a first distal end coupled to the first amplifier stage and having a second distal end coupled to a bias voltage line, and a second conductive path routed along the first conductive path and having a first distal end coupled to a ground line and having a second distal end coupled to the second amplifier stage, and the second pair of coupled lines comprises a third conductive path having a first distal end coupled to the first amplifier stage and having a second distal end coupled to the bias voltage line, and a fourth conductive path routed along the third conductive path and having a first distal end coupled to the ground line and having a second distal end coupled to the second amplifier stage” as specified the claims.
8. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
J.L
March 19, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649