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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20180026594 by Lehtola.
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 1-4, 6, and 8-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the language of the last limitation stating that “carrier amplifiers of fewer than all of the power amplification circuits remain activated” is unclear and indefinite. Examiner is unsure what exactly this is supposed to mean. Because of this, a proper prior art rejection cannot be done for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-17, which depend on claim 1, inherit this rejection.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the four amplification circuits." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which this claim is dependent on, does not mention four amplification circuits. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "around the center" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, both claims recite “a carrier amplifier” however, claim 1 already recites a plurality of amplification circuits that include carrier amplifiers. The claim becomes unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, both claims recite “a peak amplifier” however, claim 1 already recites a plurality of amplification circuits that include peaking amplifiers. The claim becomes unclear. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 8-17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20180026594 by Lehtola.
Regarding claim 1, Lehtola teaches an amplifier module comprising:
an antenna configured to radiate a high-frequency signal (Par. 9); and
a plurality of power amplification circuits coupled to the antenna (Fig. 2 #54),
wherein
the plurality of amplification circuits includes carrier amplifiers and peaking amplifiers (Fig. 3d),
activation states of the carrier amplifiers and the peaking amplifiers are controlled in accordance with a power level of the high-frequency signal to be transmitted by the antenna (Par. 39, 88-90; it is also well known in the art that Doherty amplifiers are turned on and off according to the power level of the frequency of the input signal), such that:
when the power level is a first level, the carrier amplifiers and the peaking amplifiers of all of the amplification circuits are activated (Par. 89),
when the power level decreases to a second level below the first level, the peaking amplifiers are deactivated while the carrier amplifiers remain activated (Par. 88), and
as the power level decreases to a third level below the second level, carrier amplifiers of fewer than all of the power amplification circuits remain activated.
Regarding claim 2, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of power amplification circuits include four amplification circuits (While fig. 2 shows 3 PAs, par. 32 states that other numbers of PAs can be implemented).
Regarding claim 3, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 1, wherein each of the four amplification circuits is a Doherty amplifier (Par. 39).
Regarding claim 6, Lehtola teaches a communication apparatus comprising:
a signal processing circuit that processes a high frequency signal (Fig. 1, 2, 5, 18); and
the amplifier module according to Claim 1 that is connected to the signal processing circuit.
Regarding claim 8, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of power amplification circuits each include a heterojunction bipolar transistor (HBT) (Par. 41).
Regarding claim 9, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of power amplification circuits each include a metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) (Par. 41).
Regarding claim 10, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of amplification circuits includes an amplifier that operates as a class A amplifier. While class A is not mentioned here, it is well known in the art that an amplifier can be biased in class A as taught in par. 3 of US 20230299721 by Sasaki.
Regarding claim 11, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of power amplifier circuits includes an amplifier that operates as a class AB amplifier (Par. 39).
Regarding claim 12, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 10, wherein the amplifier that operates as a class A amplifier is a carrier amplifier. While class A is not mentioned here, it is well known in the art that a carrier amplifier can be biased in class A as taught in par. 3 of US 20230299721 by Sasaki.
Regarding claim 13, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 11, wherein the amplifier that operates as a class AB amplifier is a carrier amplifier (Par. 39).
Regarding claim 14, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of amplification circuits includes an amplifier that operates as a class C amplifier (Par. 39).
Regarding claim 15, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 14, wherein the amplifier that operates as a class C amplifier is a peak amplifier (Par. 39).
Regarding claim 16, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 1, wherein the antenna is a loop antenna. While the specific type of antenna is not mentioned in Lehtola, different types of antennas, such as loop antennas, are well known in the art and can be used in amplifier circuits and communication apparatuses, as taught in par. 32 of US 20230198470 by Pellerano et al.
Regarding claim 17, Lehtola teaches the amplifier module according to Claim 1, but is silent about the antenna being formed from a planar conductor. However, this is known in the art as shown in par. 44 of JP 2014-165724 by Takeshi et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAREH SHAMIRYAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-4:00PM PT.
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 Lindgren-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.
/NAREH SHAMIRYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights