Constant Gain and Self-Calibration Technique for RF Amplifier

Application No. 18/532,210

• Filed: Dec 07, 2023
• Priority: Feb 07, 2019 — provisional 62/802,344
  • Feb 07, 2020 — reissue of 11/196,388
• Examiner: TON, MY TRANG
• Art Unit: 3992
• Tech Center: 3900
• Assignee: Tubis Technology Inc.
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Non-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.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDING
Broadening: The instant application is file within two years of issue of the 388 Patent.

Patent Term: Based upon and updated review of the file record Examiners find that the Patent term has not expired.

Litigation: Base upon Examiners review of the file itself, Examiners find that the 388 Patent is not involved in litigation.

AMENDMENT
Applicant filed the reissue application on December 7, 2023, which included a preliminary amendment (the "2023 Preliminary Amendment"). In the 2023 Preliminary Amendment, Patent claims 1, 9, 15, 17-19 were amended, claim 16 was canceled, new claims 21-33 were added, and specification was amended to modify the cross-noting information. The 2023 Preliminary Amendment has been considered and entered. This action is in response to the 2023 Preliminary Amendment.

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.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 17-33 are subject to the examination of this present reissue application. Of these, claims 1, 9, 15, 22 and 23 are independent claims.

PRIORITY
Examiners acknowledge that the present application is a reissue of the 388 Patent that issued from 504 Application. Examiners further acknowledge the claim of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/802,344, filed February 7, 2020. 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 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).

OBJECTION TO AMENDMENT
37 C.F.R. 1.173 Reissue specification, drawings, and amendments.
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued that are made to the specification, including the claims but excluding "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), and a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ) upon filing or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined.
(g) Amendments made relative to the patent. All amendments must be made relative to the patent specification, including the claims, and drawings, which are in effect as of the date of filing of the reissue application.

1/ The amendments to the claims provided in the 2023 Preliminary Amendment are objected to because they use improper bracketing in a continuation reissue. For example, the amendment to claims 1, 9, 15 and 17-19 use double bracketing. Double bracketing is reserved for reissue application of a reissue patent. See MPEP §1411 and §1453(IV)(A). Since the present reissue application is a continuation reissue and not a reissue of a reissue patent, such double bracketing is improper. Appropriate correction is required to simply represent the proposed amendment of claims 1, 9, 15 and 17-19 with single bracketing.
2/ The amendments to claims 1, 9 and 15 provided in the 2023 Preliminary Amendment are also objected because Applicant has used improper markings for the changes, wherein Applicant has used strikethrough. As noted above, amendments to the claims must use single brackets for deletions and underlining for additions. See MPEP §1453(V) for guidance.
3/ The amendments to the claims in the 2023 Preliminary Amendment are also objected to because they are improper under the rules provided above. Since claims 21-33 are new with respect to the original patent, they should be fully underlined, i.e., the claim numbers, status and text. See MPEP §1453(V)(C) and (D).
Appropriate correction is required in response to this Office action.

37 CFR §3.73(c) STATEMENT
The Statement under 37 C.F.R. §3.73(c) filed on December 7, 2023 (hereinafter “2023 3.73(c) Statement”) is objected to because: After reviewing the present reissue application, Examiners find that the 2023 3.73 (c) Statement does not identify Reel/Frame Number of the assignment record. The assignee showing of ownership must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP §1410.01. The below Assignment: Reel/Frame 51855/0437 is missing from the 2023 3.73(c) Statement. Applicant is required to provide a new statement under 37 C.F.R. §3.73(c) properly identifying the assignment records.

PNG
media_image1.png
645
1201
media_image1.png
Greyscale

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).

As noted above, the 2023 3.73(c) Statement is acknowledged but is not proper to establish ownership in the 388 Patent that Applicant is attempting to reissue herein. That is, assignees seeking consent to reissue must establish ownership of the 388 Patent to be issued. Accordingly, Applicant (assignee) is required pursuant to §1.172 to provide a proper statement of ownership in order to provide a proper consent to 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 (assignee) has not properly established ownership of the 388 Patent in the 2023 3.73(c) Statement as provided above, Applicant (assignee) has not properly consented to this reissue application.

REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §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 15, 17-20 and 23-33 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 15, the description of the present invention in claim 15 is indefinite since it fails to establish the proper structural and/or functional relationship between the recited circuit elements. For example, there is no structure connection between an equivalent load, a first feedback loop, a second feedback loop, a resistor and a radio frequency amplifier (RF amplifier). All of these element are left dangling by themselves.
Claims 17-20, 24-33 are rendered indefinite by the deficiencies of claim 15.
Claim 23 are similarly rejected as claim 15, the description of the present invention in claim 23 is indefinite since it fails to establish the proper structural and/or functional relationship between the recited circuit elements. For example, there is no structure connection between an equivalent load, a first feedback loop, a second feedback loop, a resistor and a radio frequency integrated circuit (RFIC amplifier). All of these element are left dangling by themselves.

ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
While claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §251 and/or 35 U.S.C. §112 as provided above, these claims are nevertheless allowable over the prior art of record herein.
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, 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 step “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)”.

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 reasons as claims 1, 9 and 15.

PNG
media_image2.png
480
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale

Fig. 3 of Seetharam

As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).

INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The Information Disclosure Statements filed December 7, 2023 has been considered. In accordance with MPEP § 1406, Examiners have reviewed and considered the prior art of record in the original prosecution of the 388 Patent. Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information of record in the original prosecution of the 388 Patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.

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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed MY TRANG TON whose telephone number is [phone]. 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 [phone]. 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 [phone] (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call [phone] (IN USA OR CANADA) or [phone].

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

Prosecution Timeline

• Dec 07, 2023: Application Filed
• Dec 07, 2023: Response after Non-Final Action
• Jun 10, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §Other (current)