FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Final office action addresses U.S. Application No. 18/532,210, which is a reissue application of U.S. Application No. 16/785,504 (the “504 Application”), entitled “CONSTANT GAIN AND SELF-CALIBRATION TECHNIQUE FOR RF AMPLIFIER”, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,196,388 (the “388 Patent") on December 7, 2021.
AMENDMENT
Applicant filed an amendment on September 10, 2026 (the “September 2026 Amendment”) in response to the non-final Office action mailed June 10, 2026 (the "2026 NF”). Along with the September 2026 Amendment, Applicant filed a Corrected Statement under 37 C.F.R. §3.73(c) (“the September 2026 37 C.F.R. §3.73(c) Corrected Statement”) and a consent form (“the September 2026 Consent”). The September 2026 Preliminary Amendment, the September 2026 37 C.F.R. §3.73(c) Corrected Statement and the September 2026 Consent have been considered. This action is in response to the September 2026 Amendment, the September 2026 37 C.F.R. §3.73(c) Corrected Statement and the September 2026 Consent.
STATUS OF CLAIMS
The 388 Patent issued with claims 1-20.
As of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
Patent claims 1, 9, 15 and 17-19 were amended.
Patent claims 2-8, 10-14 and 20 were originally as in the 388 Patent.
Patent claim 16 was canceled.
New claims 21-33 were added/amended.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 17-33 are subject to the examination of this present reissue application. Of these, claims 1, 9, 15 and 21-23 are independent claims.
PRIORITY
Examiners acknowledge that the present application is a reissue of the 388 Patent that was issued from 504 Application. Examiners further acknowledge the claim of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/802,344, filed February 7, 2019. Therefore, Examiners find the earliest possible filing date for the claims is the date of this provisional application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, the Examiners find that they are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiners are unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiners conclude that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiners further find that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiners conclude that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008) (precedential) (where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiners’ findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
CONSENT
37 C.F.R. §1.172 Reissue Applicant.
(a) The reissue applicant is the original patentee, or the current patent owner if there has been an assignment. A reissue application must be accompanied by the written consent of all assignees, if any, currently owning an undivided interest in the patent. All assignees consenting to the reissue must establish their ownership in the patent by filing in the reissue application a submission in accordance with the provisions of § 3.73(c).
This reissue application is objected to under 37 C.F.R. §1.172(a) as lacking the signature in the written consent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §1.172. See MPEP § 1410.01. Examiners recognize the September 2026 Consent; However, Examiners find the September 2026 Consent was missing signature. Examiners also recognize the previous consent of Assignee filed on December 7, 2023 (“December 2023 Consent”); However, Examiners find the December 2023 Consent was signed by a secretary. Thus, Examines do not find the December 2023 Consent and the September 2026 Consent both sufficient for the present reissue application. The consent of assignee must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the consent may be signed by the assignee or a patent practitioner of record. For a discussion of parties authorized to act on behalf of the assignee, see MPEP §325 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012).
Therefore, a proper consent in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §1.172 and §3.73 is required in reply to this Office action in order to continue prosecution of this reissue application.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §251(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Defective Consent
Claims 1-33 and this reissue application as a whole are rejected as being based upon a defective consent under 35 U.S.C. §251. Because Examiners find that Applicant has not properly signed the September 2026 Consent, Applicant has not properly consented to this reissue application.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
The objection under 37 C.F.R. § 1.173 has been withdrawn as necessitated by the September 2026 Amendment.
The objection of 37 C.F.R. § 3.73(c) Statement has been withdrawn as necessitated by the September 2026 37 C.F.R. §3.73(c) Corrected Statement.
The rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based upon a defective consent has been remained as explained above.
The rejection of claims 15, 17-20 and 23-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph has been withdrawn as necessitated by the September 2026 Amendment.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
As noted in the 2026 NF, while claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 as provided above, these claims are nevertheless allowable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art references are not seen to specifically teach method steps “calibrating the bias generator using a calibration circuit and N transistors in the RFIC, wherein N is a positive integer that is greater than (K+1), wherein the calibration involves selecting one transistor to be used as M1 and selecting K transistors to be used as M2” and “maintaining a constant transconductance (Gm) for the RFIC using the calibrated bias generator” in combination with “generating a bias current…”.
Dependent claims 2-8 include patentable subject matter for the same reasons as independent claim 1 from which they depend.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art references are not seen to specifically teach method steps “selecting one transistor from (K+1) transistors to be used as M1 and selecting the remaining K transistors to be used as M2 for each clock cycle using a precision clock” and “averaging the bias current or bias voltage of the bias generator over (K+1) clock cycles to maintain a constant transconductance (Gm)” in combination with “generating a bias current…”.
Dependent claims 10-14 include patentable subject matter for the same reasons as independent claim 9 from which they depend.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art references are not seen to specifically teach the detail of “a constant gain bias generator comprising:
an equivalent load based on a load of the transistors; a first feedback loop that generates a desired common mode drain voltage; a second feedback loop that generates a differential mode drain voltage; and a resistor having a resistance that is equal to a real part of an impedance of the OMN, … and wherein the constant gain bias generator adjusts a bias current and maintains a drain voltage such that the RF amplifier has a predefined RF amplifier gain”.
Dependent claims 17-20 and 24-33 include patentable subject matter for the same reasons as independent claim 15 from which they depend.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art references are not seen to specifically teach “the bias generator includes a first transistor (M1) and a second transistor (M2), the M2 being K times as large as the M1, the K being a positive integer” and “the RFIC is configured to calibrate the bias generator with the calibration circuit and the N transistors, wherein the N is a positive integer that is greater than (K+1), wherein the calibration involves selecting (K+1) identical transistors from the N transistors and selecting one transistor to be used as M1 and K transistors to be used as M2 from the (K+1) transistors, and the RFIC is further configured to maintain a constant transconductance (Gm) using the calibrated bias generator”.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art references are not seen to specifically teach the combination of “the bias generator includes a first transistor (M1) a second transistor (M2), the M2 being K times as large as the M1, the K being a positive integer”, “the RFIC is configured to select one transistor from (K+1) transistors to be used as the M1 and remaining K transistors to be used as the M2 for each clock cycle using the precision clock” and “the averaging circuit is configured to average the bias current or the bias voltage of the bias generator over (K+1) clock cycles to maintain a constant transconductance (Gm) of the RFIC”.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art references are not seen to specifically teach method steps “in a constant gain bias generator, generating, at a first feedback loop, a desired common mode drain voltage; generating, at a second feedback loop, a differential mode drain voltage; and adjusting a bias current and maintaining a drain voltage such that a radio frequency amplifier (RF amplifier) has a predefined RF amplifier gain, wherein the constant gain bias generator comprises: an equivalent load based on a load of transistors; the first feedback loop; the second feedback loop; and a resistor having a resistance that is equal to a real part of an impedance of an output matching network (OMN)”, … and the second feedback loop are coupled to one another”.
As noted in the June 2026 NF, Seetharam (US 2020/0083847) cited in PTOL 892 appears to be closet reference with respect to the claimed invention: bias generator (339) comprising a first transistor (342) and a second transistor (344), and N transistors (312-318), see Fig. 3 as reprinted below. However, Seetharam does not specifically discloses at least “calibration circuit. wherein the calibration involves selecting one transistor to be used as M1 and selecting K transistors to be used as M2” and “maintaining a constant transconductance (Gm) for the RFIC using the calibrated bias generator” as required in claim 1 in combination with the other features of the claim, or “averaging the bias current or bias voltage of the bias generator over (K+1) clock cycles to maintain a constant transconductance (Gm)” as required in claim 9 in combination with the other features of the claim, “a second feedback loop that generates a differential mode drain voltage” as required in claim 15 in combination with the other features of the claim. Therefore, claims 1, 9, 15 are patentably distinct over Seetharam. Claims 21, 22, 23 are patentably distinct over Seetharam for a similar reason as claims 1, 9 and 15.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Seetharam
PRIOR OR CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS
Applicant is reminded of the obligation to apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the 388 Patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant(s) are reminded that they “have a continuing duty under 37 CFR §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to the patentability of the claims under consideration in the reissue application. See MPEP §1418.” - MPEP § 1406.
CONCLUSION
Claims 1-33 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MY TRANG TON whose telephone number is (571) 272-1754. The Examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 6:00pm, Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
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.
Signed:
/MY TRANG TON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
