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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 12/30/2025.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objection to the drawings set forth in the previous office action, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim, as amended, recites “wherein the the first switching element”. One of “the” needs to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8, as amended, recites the following (formatting by the Applicant to show changes in the claim compared to the previous version):
“a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors, wherein the RF input signal control circuit is configured to couple the input port to only one of the first path or the second path at a time.”
Comparing this arrangement to FIG 6 (which is the only embodiment disclosed in the specification that would meet the requirements of the parent claim 1, since neither the embodiment of FIG 7, nor the embodiment of FIG 8 has “a common portion at an output of the amplifier” for the first and second paths), the only “RF input signal control circuit” which is “coupled between the input port and the resistors” AND “between the input port and the adjustable transistors” is the combination of switches 604A and 604B. Switch 610 is not coupled “between the input port and the adjustable transistors” and thus cannot be included in the recited by the claim “RF input signal control circuit”.
In view of this, the specification appears to not have any description of such functionality as “RF input signal control circuit is configured to couple the input port to only one of the first path or the second path at a time.” As explained above, “RF input signal control circuit” including only the switches 604A and 604B does not appear to have this functionality as per specification as filed since it can control only whether an amplifier is connected in the circuit or is bypassed. In contrast, in the previous version of the claim it was “the receiver” in its entirety, which had the capability of coupling the input port to either the first or the second path at a time, and this was fully supported by the specification as filed.
The same argument applies to similarly worded claim 17.
Claim 9, as amended, recites the following (formatting by the Applicant to show changes in the claim compared to the previous version):
“a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors, the RF input signal control circuit comprising the first switching element, wherein the the first switching element is configured to couple the input port to one or both of the first path and the second path.”
Comparing this arrangement to FIG 6 (which is the only embodiment disclosed in the specification that would meet the requirements of the parent claim 1, since neither the embodiment of FIG 7, nor the embodiment of FIG 8 has “a common portion at an output of the amplifier” for the first and second paths), the only “RF input signal control circuit” which is “coupled between the input port and the resistors” AND “between the input port and the adjustable transistors” is the combination of switches 604A and 604B. Switch 610 is not coupled “between the input port and the adjustable transistors” and thus cannot be included in the recited by the claim “RF input signal control circuit”. Thus, recited by the claim “the RF input signal control circuit comprising the first switching element” has no support in the specification as filed since “the first switching element” must be included in the first path, as per claim 1, and thus cannot be part of “RF input signal control circuit” since it is not coupled “between the input port and the adjustable transistors”.
In view of this, the specification appears to not have any description of such functionality as “the first switching element is configured to couple the input port to one or both of the first path and the second path” and at the same time being coupled “between the input port and the adjustable transistors”. In contrast, in the previous version of the claim it was “the receiver” in its entirety, which had the capability of coupling “the input port to one or both of the first path and the second path”, and this was fully supported by the specification as filed.
The same argument applies to similarly worded claim 18.
Therefore, the examiner considers claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 as containing new matter. To overcome this rejection, the applicant is required to point out the exact place in the specification as filed which would provide support for the subject matter of claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 as indicated or to amend the claims to bring them in conformance with the specification.
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As was explained above, Claim 8, as amended, recites the following (formatting by the Applicant to show changes in the claim compared to the previous version):
“a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors, wherein the RF input signal control circuit is configured to couple the input port to only one of the first path or the second path at a time.”
Comparing this arrangement to FIG 6, the only “RF input signal control circuit” which is “coupled between the input port and the resistors” AND “between the input port and the adjustable transistors” is the combination of switches 604A and 604B. Switch 610 is not coupled “between the input port and the adjustable transistors” and thus cannot be included in the recited by the claim “RF input signal control circuit”.
In view of this, the specification appears to not provide any enablement of the feature of switches 604A and 604B to control coupling of “the input port to only one of the first path or the second path at a time.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement this feature of controlling the coupling of “the input port to only one of the first path or the second path at a time” by using only the switches 604A and 604B without undue experimentation.
The same argument applies to similarly worded claim 17.
As was explained above, Claim 9, as amended, recites the following (formatting by the Applicant to show changes in the claim compared to the previous version):
“a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors, the RF input signal control circuit comprising the first switching element, wherein the first switching element is configured to couple the input port to one or both of the first path and the second path.”
Comparing this arrangement to FIG 6, the only “RF input signal control circuit” which is “coupled between the input port and the resistors” AND “between the input port and the adjustable transistors” is the combination of switches 604A and 604B. Switch 610 (“the first switching element”) is not coupled “between the input port and the adjustable transistors”, but instead is included in the first path, as per claim 1 and FIG 6, and thus cannot be included in the recited by claim 9 “RF input signal control circuit”.
In view of this, the specification appears to not provide any enablement of the feature of switches 604A and 604B without the switch 610 to control coupling of “the input port to only one of the first path or the second path at a time.” Additionally, the specification does not seem to provide any enablement of the feature of the switch 610 to be included within the first path and simultaneously be part of “a RF input signal control circuit coupled … between the input port and the adjustable transistors”, which are in the second path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement this this combination of features without undue experimentation.
The same argument applies to similarly worded claim 18.
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 9 and 18 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.
Claim 9, as amended, recites the following:
“a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors, the RF input signal control circuit comprising the first switching element, wherein the first switching element is configured to couple the input port to one or both of the first path and the second path.”
Parent claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, requires “the first switching element” to be part of “the first path”. Claim 9 requires “the first switching element” to be part of “a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors”. As was explained in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above, “the first switching element” cannot be at the same time part of “a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors” and part of “the first path”. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed “the first switching element” is to be a part of “the first path”, as in claim 1, or to be a part of “a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors”, as in claim 9, which are exclusive of each other.
Thus, claim 9 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The same argument applies to similarly worded claim 18.
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 1, 5 – 7, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140185718 (Ruelke) in view of US 20100144290 (Khatri) and further in view of US 20060068746 (Feng).
Regarding claim 1, Ruelke in FIG 5 with corresponding description teaches “A receiver, comprising:
an input port configured to receive an RF input signal (input 502 on the left side of the circuit shown in FIG 5. Par. 0029 – 0030.);
an amplifier coupled to the input port (Par. 0029: received signal 502 is processed through a dedicated LNA 503);
a first path…” “…coupled between the amplifier and a first…” “…mixers (shown as connection from the output of the LNA 503 through switch 514 to the a second mixer 508, see par. 0029 – 0030.);
a second path…” “…coupled between the input port and a second…” “…mixers (shown as connection from the output of the LNA 503 to a first mixer 506 (see par. 0029 – 0030).), wherein the first path and the second path share a common portion at an output of the amplifier (as may be seen from FIG 5, there is a common portion for the first and second paths at the output of the LNA 503), and wherein the first path further comprising a first switching element coupled between the common portion and the first…” “…mixers (as explained above, “the first path” comprises connection from the output of the LNA 503 (“the common portion”) through switch 514 (“a first switching element”) to the second mixer 508); and
baseband processing circuitry coupled to one or both of the first…” “…mixers and the second…” “…mixers (paragraph 0029: two independent BP-IF signals 522, 524 in FIG. 5 corresponding to signals 312, 313 of FIG. 3 respectively. Turning to FIG 3 and paragraph 0026, “baseband processing circuitry” comprises components 314, 315, 318, 322 and 326 producing a signal 328, for use by the radio system in which the receiver system 300 is implemented.).”
Ruelke does not teach that each mixer is actually a “set of” mixers as well as presence of “resistors” within the first path. In fact, Ruelke does not provide any information on implementation of the mixers, thus prompting a person of ordinary skill in the art to search for additional references. The low noise amplifier 503 in Ruelke appears to be a single ended amplifier.
Khatri in FIG 3 and paragraphs 0029 – 0031 teaches an embodiment of a single-ended LNA 300 coupled to a mixer 350 having a single-balanced portion 350.1 and a dummy portion 350.2. This type of mixer has an advantage of noise reducing properties. There are also degeneration resistors 265, 266, 275, 276 provided at the sources of the transistor 260, 261, 270, 271. The resistors added to the mixer input may help to reduce noise. In other words, Khatri teaches implementation of a mixer as “a set of mixers.”
Therefore, since Ruelke does not disclose specific implementation of mixers 506 and 508 in FIG 5, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Khatri in FIG 3 implementation of the mixers simply as design choice and to fill in where Ruelke is silent with predictable results, since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Doing so would have also allowed to reduce noise (see Khatri, abstract).
Ruelke does not teach internal structure of the low noise amplifier 503, thus prompting a person of ordinary skill in the art to search for additional references.
Feng in FIG 2 with corresponding description teaches a schematic diagram of a low noise amplifier having a single-ended design.
Therefore, since Ruelke does not disclose specific implementation of the low noise amplifier 503 in FIG 5, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Feng in FIG 2 implementation of the low noise amplifier simply as design choice and to fill in where Ruelke is silent with predictable results, since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The Examiner made an example sketch of how the device of Ruelke would look like when Ruelke’s mixers 506 and 508 are each implemented as single-balanced mixer having a dummy portion (as disclosed by Khatri) and low noise amplifier 503 is implemented as disclosed by Feng:
PNG
media_image1.png
1243
1574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sketch 1
Therefore, Ruelke in combination with Feng and Khatri teaches or fairly suggests claim 1: “an input port configured to receive an RF input signal (Ruelke, input 502 on the left side of the circuit shown in FIG 5. Also see Sketch 1 above);
an amplifier coupled to the input port (Ruelke, shown as LNA 503 in FIG 5 and Sketch 1 coupled to the input port.);
a first path comprising resistors coupled between the amplifier and a first set of mixers (shown as connection from the output of the LNA 503 through switch 514 to the a second mixer 508 in Ruelke’s FIG 5. When combined with Khatri as shown in Sketch 1 above, Ruelke’s second mixer 508 is implemented as “a first set of mixers” comprising lower pair of 350.1 and 350.2 in Sketch 1. “resistors coupled between the amplifier and a first set of mixers” are mapped to resistors 265 and 266);
a second path comprising adjustable transistors coupled between the input port and a second set of mixers (shown as connection from the input port to a first mixer 506 in Ruelke. When combined with Khatri as shown in Sketch 1 above, Ruelke’s first mixer 506 is implemented as “a second set of mixers” comprising upper pair of 350.1 and 350.2 in Sketch 1. When combined with Feng as shown in Sketch 1 above, “adjustable transistors coupled between the input port and a second set of mixers” are mapped to Feng’s transistors Q1, Q2, Q3 (each adjustable through respective BIAS terminal), as well as MOSFETs MID-GAIN and LOW-GAIN within the LNA. Even though these transistors are also coupled to the “first set of mixers”, this is not forbidden by the language of the claim), wherein the first path and the second path share a common portion at an output of the amplifier (as may be seen from FIG 5 as well as Sketch 1 above, there is a common portion for the first and second paths at the output of the LNA 503), and wherein the first path further comprising a first switching element coupled between the common portion and the first set of mixers (“the first path” comprises connection from the output of the LNA 503 (“the common portion”) through switch 514 (“a first switching element”) to the second mixer 508. When combined with Khatri as shown in Sketch 1 above, Ruelke’s second mixer 508 is implemented as “a first set of mixers” comprising lower pair of 350.1 and 350.2 in Sketch 1.) and
baseband processing circuitry coupled to one or both of the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers (Ruelke, paragraph 0029: two independent BP-IF signals 522, 524 in FIG. 5 corresponding to signals 312, 313 of FIG. 3 respectively. Turning to FIG 3 and paragraph 0026, “baseband processing circuitry” comprises components 314, 315, 318, 322 and 326 producing a signal 328, for use by the radio system in which the receiver system 300 is implemented (not shown in Sketch 1 above)).”
Regarding claim 13, Ruelke in combination with Feng and Khatri teaches or fairly suggests “A receiver (shown in FIG 5 of Ruelke and also partially in Sketch 1 above), comprising:
an input port configured to receive an RF input signal (Ruelke, input 502 on the left side of the circuit shown in FIG 5. Also see Sketch 1 above);
an amplifier coupled to the input port (Ruelke, shown as LNA 503 in FIG 5 and Sketch 1 coupled to the input port.);
a first set of mixers coupled to the input port via degeneration resistors in a first path between the amplifier and a first set of mixers (shown as connection from the output of the LNA 503 through switch 514 to the a second mixer 508 in Ruelke’s FIG 5. When combined with Khatri as shown in Sketch 1 above, Ruelke’s second mixer 508 is implemented as “a first set of mixers” comprising lower pair of 350.1 and 350.2 in Sketch 1. “degeneration resistors in a first path between the amplifier and a first set of mixers” are mapped to resistors 265 and 266);
a second set of mixers coupled to the input port via adjustable gain control transistors in a second path between the input port and a second set of mixers (“a second path between the input port and a second set of mixers” is shown as connection from the input port to a first mixer 506 in Ruelke. When combined with Khatri as shown in Sketch 1 above, Ruelke’s first mixer 506 is implemented as “a second set of mixers” comprising upper pair of 350.1 and 350.2 in Sketch 1. When combined with Feng as shown in Sketch 1 above, “adjustable gain control transistors” are mapped to Feng’s MOSFETs MID-GAIN and LOW-GAIN within the LNA. Even though these transistors are also coupled to the “first set of mixers”, this is not forbidden by the language of the claim), wherein the first path and the second path share a common portion at an output of the amplifier (as may be seen from FIG 5 as well as Sketch 1 above, there is a common portion for the first and second paths at the output of the LNA 503), and wherein the first path further comprising a first switching element coupled between the common portion and the first set of mixers (“the first path” comprises connection from the output of the LNA 503 (“the common portion”) through switch 514 (“a first switching element”) to the second mixer 508. When combined with Khatri as shown in Sketch 1 above, Ruelke’s second mixer 508 is implemented as “a first set of mixers” comprising lower pair of 350.1 and 350.2 in Sketch 1.); and
baseband processing circuitry coupled to one or both of the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers (Ruelke, paragraph 0029: two independent BP-IF signals 522, 524 in FIG. 5 corresponding to signals 312, 313 of FIG. 3 respectively. Turning to FIG 3 and paragraph 0026, “baseband processing circuitry” comprises components 314, 315, 318, 322 and 326 producing a signal 328, for use by the radio system in which the receiver system 300 is implemented (not shown in Sketch 1 above)).”
Regarding claim 5, Ruelke in combination with Kharti and Feng teaches “wherein the first path and the second path are separate prior to the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers (as may be seen from FIG 5 of Ruelke as well as Sketch 1 above, there are two separate paths just prior to each set of mixers).”
Regarding claim 6, Ruelke in combination with Feng and Khatri teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the amplifier comprises a low noise amplifier (LNA) coupled between the input port and the first set of mixers (Ruelke, paragraph 0029 and FIG 5: a low noise amplifier LNA 503 which is shown to be connected as the claim requires).”
Regarding claim 7, Ruelke in combination with Feng and Khatri teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the resistors comprise degeneration resistors coupled to mixers of the first set of mixers (Khatri, paragraph 0031: degeneration resistors 265, 266, 275, 276 are provided at the sources of the transistor 260, 261, 270, 271. Resistors added to the mixer input may help to reduce noise.) and the adjustable transistors comprise configurable gain control elements coupled to the second set of mixers (shown as at least MOSFETs MID-GAIN and LOW-GAIN in Sketch 1 above (from Feng). They are coupled to both sets of mixers which includes “the second set of mixers”).”
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Ruelke in combination with Feng teaches “further comprising: a matching network coupled between the input port and the adjustable transistors (Feng, paragraph 0072: The input matching components include a low frequency "trap" 13A constructed from external LC components that enhance the input third-order input intercept (IIP3) performance of the LNA. The position of these matching components corresponds to the requirement of the claim).”
Regarding claim 15, Ruelke in combination with Feng and Khatri teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the baseband processing circuitry is coupled to both the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers (Ruelke, paragraph 0029: two independent BP-IF signals 522, 524 in FIG. 5 corresponding to signals 312, 313 of FIG. 3 respectively. Turning to FIG 3 and paragraph 0026, “the baseband processing circuitry” comprises components 314, 315, 318, 322 and 326 producing a signal 328, for use by the radio system in which the receiver system 300 is implemented. Thus, it is “coupled to both the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers”).”
Regarding claim 16, Ruelke in combination with Feng and Khatri teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the baseband processing circuitry is coupled to the first set of mixers (in FIG 3 of Ruelke, this would include processing block 315 together with the part of the circuitry for digitization and decimation 318 that is directly connected to the output of 315.), the receiver further comprising second baseband processing circuitry coupled to the second set of mixers (in FIG 3 of Ruelke, this would include processing block 314 together with the part of the circuitry for digitization and decimation 318 that is directly connected to the output of 314.).”
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140185718 (Ruelke) in view of US 20100144290 (Khatri) and US 20060068746 (Feng) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20060222116 (Hughes).
Regarding claim 12, Ruelke does not teach “logic circuitry configured to determine whether criteria are met for switching between a mixer-first configuration and an amplifier-first configuration; and
a radio frequency front end (RFFE) coupled to the receiver, wherein the RFFE comprises a filter and a low noise amplifier (LNA), wherein the logic circuitry is configured to bypass at least one of the filter or the LNA of the RFFE based on the criteria.”
Hughes in paragraph 0003 teaches that a broad band of signals may be present in the front ends, IF stages, or analog to digital converter(s) (ADC). The chances that the front ends and particularly later receiver stages such as IF stages or ADCs may be overloaded by a large near band or out of band (off-channel) signal has increased with the reduction in selectivity. This may cause serious overloading conditions (exceeding dynamic range) for cost effective ADCs.
To overcome this problem, Hughes teaches a solution comprising “logic circuitry (paragraph 0024: an off-channel state machine or controller 173 coupled to the controller 143.) configured to determine whether criteria are met for switching between a mixer-first configuration and an amplifier-first configuration (paragraph 0019: computing a Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) value to switch in or out the LNA(s) 103. Comparing the RSSI to thresholds is covered in paragraph 0020 (“determine whether criteria are met”). When the switches 105 in FIG 1 are “on” for both LNAs, the configuration corresponds to “a mixer-first configuration”. When the switches 105 in FIG 1 are “off” for at least one of the LNAs, the configuration corresponds to “an amplifier-first configuration”.); and
a radio frequency front end (RFFE) coupled to the receiver (in FIG 1 corresponds to the first low noise amplifier LNA1), wherein the RFFE comprises…” “…a low noise amplifier (LNA) (in FIG 1 corresponds to the first low noise amplifier LNA1), wherein the logic circuitry is configured to bypass at least one of the filter or the LNA of the RFFE based on the criteria (paragraph 0019: computing a Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) value to switch in or out the LNA(s) 103. Paragraph 0015: The LNA(s) 103 and associated circuitry include a bypass switch arrangement 105 that allows the LNA(s) to be controllably used. More specifically the switch arrangement when operated foregoes that amount of gain for the received signal.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Hughes arrangement for controlling whether low noise amplifier is included in the circuit or bypassed, in the device of Ruelke, Khatri and Feng, so that Ruelke’s LNA 503 in FIG 5 is controllably used. Doing so would have allowed to detect off-channel or out-of-band signals that may result in overloading one or more functions, e.g., analog to digital converters (ADCs), and as needed effect a controlled gain reduction in such situations and thus avoid any detrimental impact that may otherwise occur (see Hughes, paragraph 0011).
In the system of combined Ruelke, Khatri, Feng and Hughes’s disclosures, the RFFE would have also included recited by the claim “a filter” implemented as either low frequency trap at the input of Feng’s low noise amplifier in FIG 2 (also shown in Sketch 1 above) or alternatively, based on teaching of Kharti in paragraph 0021 that the received RF signal is amplified by LNA 152 and filtered by a filter 154 to obtain a desirable RF input signal.
Regarding claim 2, Ruelke teaches “wherein the baseband processing circuitry is coupled to both the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers (paragraph 0029: two independent BP-IF signals 522, 524 in FIG. 5 corresponding to signals 312, 313 of FIG. 3 respectively. Turning to FIG 3 and paragraph 0026, “baseband processing circuitry” comprises components 314, 315, 318, 322 and 326 producing a signal 328, for use by the radio system in which the receiver system 300 is implemented. As may be seen, the entirety of “the baseband processing circuitry is coupled to both the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers” when the mixers are implemented as “sets of mixers” using the teaching of Khatri)…” “…and wherein the receiver is configured to couple the input port to only one of the first path (comprising limitation “A”) or the second path (comprising limitation “B”) at a time (in Ruelke, “the input port” corresponds to the signal on the input line 502. Paragraph 0029: In the dual watch mode, switch 514 is configured in such a way that the output signal of LNA 503 is conveyed to mixer 506 only. In other words, “the input port” is coupled “to only one of” “the second path”, as was mapped in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since the limitation is written in the alternative form (“only one of A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B”. In this case limitation “B” is met.).”
Ruelke does not teach “wherein the second path is coupled to the input port without a low noise amplifier therebetween.”
Hughes in paragraph 0003 teaches that a broad band of signals may be present in the front ends, IF stages, or analog to digital converter(s) (ADC). The chances that the front ends and particularly later receiver stages such as IF stages or ADCs may be overloaded by a large near band or out of band (off-channel) signal has increased with the reduction in selectivity. This may cause serious overloading conditions (exceeding dynamic range) for cost effective ADCs.
To overcome this problem, Hughes teaches a solution in paragraph 0019: computing a Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) value to switch in or out the LNA(s) 103 in FIG 1. Paragraph 0015: The LNA(s) 103 and associated circuitry include a bypass switch arrangement 105 that allows the LNA(s) to be controllably used. More specifically the switch arrangement when operated foregoes that amount of gain for the received signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Hughes arrangement for controlling whether low noise amplifier is included in the circuit or bypassed, in the device of Ruelke, Khatri and Feng, so that Ruelke’s LNA 503 in FIG 5 is controllably used. Doing so would have allowed to detect off-channel or out-of-band signals that may result in overloading one or more functions, e.g., analog to digital converters (ADCs), and as needed effect a controlled gain reduction in such situations and thus avoid any detrimental impact that may otherwise occur (see Hughes, paragraph 0011).
In the system of combined Ruelke, Khatri, Feng and Hughes’s disclosures, when Ruelke’s low noise amplifier 503 is selectively bypassed using the solution proposed by Hughes, “the second path [would be] coupled to the input port without a low noise amplifier therebetween.” It would also apply to “the first path”, however, the claim does not prohibit this outcome.
Regarding claim 3, Ruelke teaches “wherein the baseband processing circuitry is coupled to the first set of mixers (in FIG 3 of Ruelke, this would include processing block 315 together with the part of the circuitry for digitization and decimation 318 that is directly connected to the output of 315.), the receiver further comprising second baseband processing circuitry coupled to the second set of mixers (in FIG 3 of Ruelke, this would include processing block 314 together with the part of the circuitry for digitization and decimation 318 that is directly connected to the output of 314.)…” “…and wherein the receiver is configured to couple the input port to one (“the input port” corresponds to the signal on the input line 502. Paragraph 0029: In the dual watch mode, switch 514 is configured in such a way that the output signal of LNA 503 is conveyed to mixer 506 only. In other words, “the input port” is coupled “to one” “of the first path and the second path”) or both of the first path and the second path (paragraph 0030: In a single channel, complex IQ analog receive topology, there is no received signal 504, and switch 514 is configured such that the output of LNA 503 is conveyed to both mixers 506 and 508, representing “both of the first path and the second path”.).”
Ruelke does not teach “wherein the second path is coupled to the input port without a low noise amplifier therebetween.”
Hughes in paragraph 0003 teaches that a broad band of signals may be present in the front ends, IF stages, or analog to digital converter(s) (ADC). The chances that the front ends and particularly later receiver stages such as IF stages or ADCs may be overloaded by a large near band or out of band (off-channel) signal has increased with the reduction in selectivity. This may cause serious overloading conditions (exceeding dynamic range) for cost effective ADCs.
To overcome this problem, Hughes teaches a solution in paragraph 0019: computing a Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) value to switch in or out the LNA(s) 103 in FIG 1. Paragraph 0015: The LNA(s) 103 and associated circuitry include a bypass switch arrangement 105 that allows the LNA(s) to be controllably used. More specifically the switch arrangement when operated foregoes that amount of gain for the received signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Hughes arrangement for controlling whether low noise amplifier is included in the circuit or bypassed, in the device of Ruelke, Khatri and Feng, so that Ruelke’s LNA 503 in FIG 5 is controllably used. Doing so would have allowed to detect off-channel or out-of-band signals that may result in overloading one or more functions, e.g., analog to digital converters (ADCs), and as needed effect a controlled gain reduction in such situations and thus avoid any detrimental impact that may otherwise occur (see Hughes, paragraph 0011).
In the system of combined Ruelke, Khatri, Feng and Hughes’s disclosures, when Ruelke’s low noise amplifier 503 is selectively bypassed using the solution proposed by Hughes, “the second path [would be] coupled to the input port without a low noise amplifier therebetween.” It would also apply to “the first path”, however, the claim does not prohibit this outcome.
Regarding claim 14, Ruelke does not teach “wherein the second path is coupled to the input port without a low noise amplifier therebetween.”
Hughes in paragraph 0003 teaches that a broad band of signals may be present in the front ends, IF stages, or analog to digital converter(s) (ADC). The chances that the front ends and particularly later receiver stages such as IF stages or ADCs may be overloaded by a large near band or out of band (off-channel) signal has increased with the reduction in selectivity. This may cause serious overloading conditions (exceeding dynamic range) for cost effective ADCs.
To overcome this problem, Hughes teaches a solution in paragraph 0019: computing a Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) value to switch in or out the LNA(s) 103 in FIG 1. Paragraph 0015: The LNA(s) 103 and associated circuitry include a bypass switch arrangement 105 that allows the LNA(s) to be controllably used. More specifically the switch arrangement when operated foregoes that amount of gain for the received signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Hughes arrangement for controlling whether low noise amplifier is included in the circuit or bypassed, in the device of Ruelke, Khatri and Feng, so that Ruelke’s LNA 503 in FIG 5 is controllably used. Doing so would have allowed to detect off-channel or out-of-band signals that may result in overloading one or more functions, e.g., analog to digital converters (ADCs), and as needed effect a controlled gain reduction in such situations and thus avoid any detrimental impact that may otherwise occur (see Hughes, paragraph 0011).
In the system of combined Ruelke, Khatri, Feng and Hughes’s disclosures, when Ruelke’s low noise amplifier 503 is selectively bypassed using the solution proposed by Hughes, “the second path [would be] coupled to the input port without a low noise amplifier therebetween.” It would also apply to “the first path”, however, the claim does not prohibit this outcome.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140185718 (Ruelke) in view of US 20100144290 (Khatri) and US 20060068746 (Feng) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6009129 (Kenney).
Regarding claim 21, Ruelke does not teach “further comprising: a second switching element coupled between the input port and the amplifier, the second switching element different from the first switching element; a third switching element coupled between the input port and the common portion, the third switching element different from the second switching element; and logic circuitry configured to determine whether criteria are met for switching between a mixer-first configuration and an amplifier-first configuration, wherein: in the mixer-first configuration, the first switching element and the second switching element are toggled off, and the third switching element is toggled on, and in the amplifier-first configuration, the first switching element and the second switching element are toggled on, and the third switching element is toggled off.”
Kenney teaches a switched bypass connection to bypass the low noise amplifier, sending the received signal through an amplifier bypass connection. The switched bypass is activated by a control signal generated by a digital signal processor. The digital signal processor analyzes the received signal to detect and determine the relative contribution of the IMD interference to the total received signal power and, when the IMD interference exceeds a predetermined level, sends a control signal to bypass the low noise amplifier. See abstract.
Kenney’s FIG 3 with corresponding description teaches “comprising: a second switching element coupled between the input port and the amplifier (switch 303 in FIG 3)…” “…a third switching element coupled between the input port and the common portion (switch 304 in FIG 3)…” “…and logic circuitry configured to determine whether criteria are met for switching between a mixer-first configuration and an amplifier-first configuration (abstract: The digital signal processor analyzes the received signal to detect and determine the relative contribution of the IMD interference to the total received signal power and, when the IMD interference exceeds a predetermined level, sends a control signal to bypass the low noise amplifier. When the low noise amplifier is bypassed, as may be seen from FIG 3, it is “a mixer-first configuration”; when the low noise amplifier is not bypassed, it is “an amplifier-first configuration”), wherein: in the mixer-first configuration…” “…the second switching element are toggled off, and the third switching element is toggled on (Col. 6 lines 44 – 46: If open, switch 303 (“the second switching element are toggled off”) couples the broad band-filtered signal to switch 304, which, if closed (“the third switching element is toggled on”), passes the signal through attenuator 306, then on to node 324 representing input to the mixer 307), and in the amplifier-first configuration…” “…the second switching element are toggled on, and the third switching element is toggled off (Col. 6 lines 42 – 43: If closed, switch 303 (“the second switching element are toggled on”) couples the broad band-filtered signal to low noise amplifier (LNA) 305 representing “the amplifier-first configuration”. It is implicit that the switch 304 is open in this configuration (“the third switching element is toggled off”)).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Kenney controlling of the low noise amplifier based on the level of IMD interference, in the system of combined Ruelke, Khatri and Feng’s disclosures to control Ruelke’s LNA 503. Doing so would have allowed to reduce intermodulation distortion.
With respect to “the first switching element”, represented by the switch 514 in Ruelke’s FIG 5 and Sketch 1 above, in the device of combined Ruelke, Khatri, Feng and Kenney’s disclosures, it would be different from Kenney’s switches 304 and 303. Recited by claim 21 “mixer-first configuration” would be achieved when Kenney’s switch 303 (“the second switching element”) is open and Ruelke’s switch 514 (“the first switching element”) is in the position disconnecting LNA 503 from the mixer 508, thus both switches being “toggled off”, while Kenney’s switch 304 is closed (“the third switching element is toggled on”). Recited by claim 21 “amplifier-first configuration” would be achieved when Kenney’s switch 303 (“the second switching element”) is closed and Ruelke’s switch 514 (“the first switching element”) is in the position connecting LNA 503 to the mixer 508, thus both switches being “toggled on”, while Kenney’s switch 304 is open (“the third switching element is toggled off”).
Claims 1, 5 – 9, 13 and 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070111661 (Bargroff) in view of CN 101483408 (Ma) (references are given according to English translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Bargroff in FIG 10 with corresponding description teaches “A receiver (paragraph 0139: the receiver of FIG. 1 can include LNB modules connected to an integrated circuit implementation of the crosspoint switch with band translation 1000. Also see Sketch 2 showing a portion of FIG 10 that is specifically mapped to the limitations of this claim), comprising:
an input port configured to receive an RF input signal (paragraph 0144: The differential input 1012a of the first LNA 1010a);
an amplifier coupled to the input port (paragraph 0143: a first low noise amplifier (LNA) 1010a);
a first path…” “…between the amplifier and a first set of mixers (“a first path” comprising both in-phase and inverted outputs from the amplifier including a common portion 1014a and through the switches 1022a and 1026a into the differential inputs of the first band translation device 1030a (mixer). Since the first band translation device 1030a has differential inputs and outputs, it necessarily comprises a “set of mixers”, thus being “a first set of mixers”);
a second path…” “…between the input port and a second set of mixers (“a second path” comprising both in-phase and inverted outputs from the amplifier including a common portion 1014a and through the switches 1024a and 1028a into the differential input of the second band translation device 1030b (mixer). Since the second band translation device 1030b has differential inputs and outputs, it necessarily comprises a “set of mixers”, thus being “a second set of mixers”), wherein the first path and the second path share a common portion at an output of the amplifier (represented by both wires of the common portion 1014a), and wherein the first path further comprising a first switching element coupled between the common portion and the first set of mixers (represented by the switch 1022a connected between the common portion 1014a and the first band translation device 1030a); and
baseband processing circuitry coupled to one or both of the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers (implicit, directly or indirectly coupled to the output of both translation devices 1030a and 1030b).”
PNG
media_image2.png
785
1427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sketch 2
Bargroff does not disclose presence of “adjustable transistors coupled” (“adjustable gain control transistors”, as in claim 13) within the second path. Bargroff in paragraph 0144 teaches connecting a high isolation switch configuration to the output of the first LNA 1010a, and in paragraph 0153 states that FIGS. 11A-11D are embodiments of high isolation switches. Each of the switch embodiments of FIGS. 11A-11D are single-ended configurations. The switch embodiments can be duplicated to allow switching of in-phase and inverted signals of differential signals. Thus, a pair of switches from FIGS. 11A-11D can be used as the switch pairs of FIG. 10. Paragraph 0156: FIG. 11C is a third switch embodiment having multiple transistors configured to provide increased signal isolation.
Bargroff does not disclose presence of “resistors coupled” (“degeneration resistors”, as in claim 13) within the first path. Additionally, Bargroff does not disclose structure of the band translation devices 1030, thus prompting a person of ordinary skill in the art to search for additional references.
In this respect, Ma in FIG 1 teaches a traditional differential passive mixer structure having resistors R1 and R2 at its differential inputs.
Therefore, since Bargroff does not disclose structure of the band translation devices 1030, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Ma structure of a traditional differential mixer simply to fill in where Bargroff is silent and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
The Examiner made Sketch 3 that includes Bargroff’s circuit of FIG 10 (only with respect to the upper portion) modified with using Bargroff’s switch of FIG 11C in place of each of the switches 1022a – 1028a as well as with using Ma’s differential passive mixer as each of the band translation devices 1030. Correspondence between the claim and the resulting structure is also shown in Sketch 3 specifically pointing out position of the resistors and adjustable transistors.
PNG
media_image3.png
1216
1634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sketch 3
Regarding claim 5, Bargroff in combination with Ma teaches “wherein the first path and the second path are separate prior to the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers (as may be seen from Sketch 3 above, there are separate paths just prior to each set of mixers).”
Regarding claim 6, Bargroff in combination with Ma teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the amplifier comprises a low noise amplifier (LNA) coupled between the input port and the first set of mixers (Bargroff, paragraph 0143: a first low noise amplifier (LNA) 1010a which is shown to be connected as the claim requires).”
Regarding claim 7, Bargroff in combination with Ma teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the resistors comprise degeneration resistors coupled to mixers of the first set of mixers (Ma, paragraph 0031: resistors R1 and R2 connected to the differential inputs of the mixer) and the adjustable transistors comprise configurable gain control elements coupled to the second set of mixers (mapped to specifically transistors 1122 and 1124 in the second path in Sketch 3 above (from Bargroff’s FIG 11C).).”
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Bargroff in combination with Ma teaches or fairly suggests “further comprising: a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors (in Sketch 3 above, represented by plurality of transistors 1120), wherein the RF input signal control circuit is configured to couple the input port to only one of the first path or the second path at a time (switching transistors 1120 on or off in a path would couple the respective path to the input port. Bargroff, paragraph 0146: A switch connected to the in-phase output, for example 1022a, is typically paired with a switch on the inverted output, for example 1026a, such that a differential signal is selectively connected by the switch pair 1022a, 1026a. Par. 0147: A second switch pair 1024a, 1028a selectively connects the differential output of the first LNA 1010a to the second band translation device 1030b.).”
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Bargroff in combination with Ma teaches or fairly suggests “further comprising: a RF input signal control circuit coupled between the input port and the resistors and between the input port and the adjustable transistors (in Sketch 3 above, represented by plurality of transistors 1120), the RF input signal control circuit comprising the first switching element, wherein the the first switching element is configured to couple the input port to one or both of the first path and the second path (switching transistors 1120 on or off in a path would couple the respective path to the input port. “Both of the first path and the second path” may be coupled to the input, but sequentially, not at the same time. Bargroff, paragraph 0146: A switch connected to the in-phase output, for example 1022a, is typically paired with a switch on the inverted output, for example 1026a, such that a differential signal is selectively connected by the switch pair 1022a, 1026a. Par. 0147: A second switch pair 1024a, 1028a selectively connects the differential output of the first LNA 1010a to the second band translation device 1030b.).”
Regarding claim 15, Bargroff in combination with Ma teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the baseband processing circuitry is coupled to both the first set of mixers and the second set of mixers (although not shown in FIG 10 of Bargroff, it is implicit, either directly or indirectly).”
Regarding claim 16, Bargroff in combination with Ma teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the baseband processing circuitry is coupled to the first set of mixers (although not shown in FIG 10 of Bargroff, it is implicit, either directly or indirectly connected to the band translation device 1030a), the receiver further comprising second baseband processing circuitry coupled to the second set of mixers (although not shown in FIG 10 of Bargroff, it is implicit, either directly or indirectly connected to the band translation device 1030b).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20 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.
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648