DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: The Applicant argues that the specification, as filed, describes the limitation “based on a rate of change of the bias code with respect to the output power not corresponding to a change in value of the bias code.” The Applicant argues that paragraphs [0037]-[0038], [0069]-[0071], [0083], and [0095]-[0097] provide support for this limitation.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant in paragraph [0071] discloses that “the calibration circuitry 206 determines whether the rate of change (e.g., slope) corresponds to a change in value of the bias code. For example, if the controller circuitry 204 increased the value of the bias code, the calibration circuitry 206 determines whether the output power of a PA measured by corresponding PD circuitry increased. Also, for example, if the controller circuitry 204 decreased the value of the bias code, the calibration circuitry 206 determines whether the output power of a PA measured by corresponding PD circuitry decreased. Based on (e.g., in response to) the calibration circuitry 206 determining that the rate of change does not correspond to the change in value of the bias code, the calibration circuitry 206 overrides the rate of change.” The Applicant in paragraph [0038] discloses that “if the change in the measured output power does not correspond to the change in bias code (e.g., the bias code value was increased, but the measured output power decreased), the radar control circuitry 102 overrides the measured output power with an expected change in output power that corresponds to the change in bias code.” The Applicant in paragraph [0070] discloses that Rate of change =
B
i
a
s
C
o
d
e
i
-
B
i
a
s
c
o
d
e
i
-
1
O
u
t
p
u
t
P
o
w
e
r
i
-
O
u
t
p
u
t
P
o
w
e
r
i
-
1
. This equation clearly shows that the rate of change (slope) corresponds to a change in value of the bias code (i.e., values of Bias Code i and Bias Code i-1). The examiner recognizes that in some situations the slope of change might be negative (i.e., the bias code value was increased, but the measured output power decreased.) However, even in these situations the rate of change of the bias code with respect to the output power still corresponds to a change in value of the bias code, it is just in an opposite direction (i.e., when one increases the other one decreases). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: The Applicant also argues that the specification provides extensive and consistent disclosure regarding "the first values" and "the second values." Such values may represent pre-stored (e.g., in a lookup table) expected (simulated or predicted) bias code values and corresponding expected output power values. See, e.g., paras. [0063], [0069], [0083], and [0096]. The Applicant argues that setting the rate of change "based on" these values means, for example, computing or accessing a default slope (rate of change) derived from the lookup table values.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention’s disclosure does not disclose how to set the rate of change based on first values of the bias code and second values of the output power. The Applicant in paragraph [0069] discloses that “In the illustrated example of FIG. 2, the calibration circuitry 206 sets a rate of change of a bias code for a PA with respect to an output power of the PA. For example, the calibration circuitry 206 determines if the value of the bias code is an initial value. Based on (e.g., in response to) the calibration circuitry 206 determining that the value of the bias code is the initial value of the bias code, the calibration circuitry 206 sets the rate of change of the bias code with respect the output power based on the set of bias code values and corresponding expected output powers.” However, the Applicant in the invention’s disclosure does not disclose how the calibration circuitry sets the rate of change of the bias code with respect to the output power based on the bias code values and corresponding expected output values. The Applicant’s statement, cited in the Applicant’s arguments, (i.e., “setting the rate of change “based on” these values means, for example, computing or accessing a default slope derived from the lookup table values”) is not part of the original disclosure.
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 1-20 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. As to claims 1, 8, and 15, the limitation “based on a rate of change of the bias code with respect to the output power not corresponding to a change in value of the bias code, set the rate of change based on first values of the bias code and second values of the output power” 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. Applicant in the invention’s disclosure (see for instance paragraphs 0070-0073 and Fig. 6) does not disclose how a rate of change of the bias code is not corresponding to a change in value of the bias code. Based on the equation provided in paragraph 0070 of the invention’s disclosure and the flowchart provided in Fig. 6, the rate of change of the bias code always corresponds to the change in value of the bias code. Furthermore, the invention’s disclosure does not disclose how to set the rate of change based on first values of the bias code and second values of the output power. The Applicant mentions this limitation in Fig. 6, block 618. However, no further details are provided in the invention’s disclosure on how these values set the rate of change. Applicant in the invention’s disclosure, paragraph 0071 broadly discloses overriding the rate of change. However, the Applicant fails to disclose how this overriding process is performed when there is more than one value for the bias code and more than one value for the output power. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, therefore they are rejected as well. Claims 9-14 depend on claim 8, therefore they are rejected as well. Claims 16-20 depend on claim 15, therefore they are rejected as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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. As to claims 1, 8, and 15, it is not clear how the system sets the rate of change based on first values of the bias code and second values of the output power. When there is a first set of values of the bias code and a second set of values of the output power, it is not clear how these values are used to set the rate of change. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, therefore they are rejected as well. Claims 9-14 depend on claim 8, therefore they are rejected as well. Claims 16-20 depend on claim 15, therefore they are rejected as well.
Conclusion
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 to LEILA MALEK whose telephone number is (571)272-8731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
LEILA . MALEK
Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/LEILA MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights