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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 17, “one of the plurality of amplifiers is inverting’ should be –one of the plurality of amplifiers is an inverting amplifier--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 and 14-20 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.
In claim 1, it is unclear how claim 1 is a “communications module” as defined in the preamble as there are no communication elements claimed. Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected since they depend upon claim 1.
In claim 14, it’s unclear how the body of the claim makes up a “transceiver” as defined in the preamble with only a transmitter being recited in the claimed limitations. Dependent claims 15-20 are rejected since they depend upon claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hageman et al US 9093984 B1
Consider claim 1. Hageman et al teaches a 5G or mm-wave communication module (fig 1b) comprising: a plurality of channels (103, 105), each channel comprising a D-band (see col 4, lines 35-37) phase shifter comprising; a plurality of differential delay lines (114a, 114b) coupled at a plurality of delay line junctions, wherein the plurality of differential delay lines are configured to provide a plurality of quadrature-phase shifts ( at the output of phase shifters 114a and 114b, see also col 1, lines 14-16); a plurality of amplifiers (108a, 108b) coupled to the plurality of delay line junctions (at the output of phase shifters 114a, 114b); and a buffer amplifier (110, note the applicants spec at 0012indicates the buffer amplifier can be a combiner) coupled to the plurality of amplifiers through a buffer coupling (input internal to 110), wherein the buffer amplifier is configured to output a phase shifted signal (see col 3, lines 1-4) for a channel of the plurality of channels (see two separate signals in the abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Hageman teaches the phase shift controller is configured to combine signals from the plurality of amplifiers without a phase shift (see modified signal same phase in claim 3 of Hageman).
Regarding claim 7. Hageman teaches wherein the plurality of amplifiers comprise a plurality of variable gain amplifiers (VGA’s), whereby the phase of the phase-shifted signal is controlled by the VGA’s (see col 2, lines 64- col 3, line 4)
Regarding 8. Hageman teaches wherein each of the plurality of variable gain amplifiers is configured for separate voltage control (see col 2, lines 64-66), wherein the 5G or mm-wave communication module is configured to output a beamed signal (see col 3, lines 63-64) by adjusting the gain of the plurality of variable gain amplifiers of each phase shifter of each D-band phase shifter of the plurality of channels (see col 2, lines 66 to col 3, line 1).
Consider claim 14. Hageman teaches a D-band transceiver (see claim 8 of Hageman), the transceiver (fig 1b) comprising: a phased antenna array (see fig 2) operably coupled to an output (when in transmitting mode) of a buffer amplifier (110, note applicants spec at 0012 states the buffer amplifier could be a combiner) of a phase shifter (114 a or b); a transmitter operably coupled to an input delay line (106 a or b) of the phase shifter, wherein the phase shifter comprises: a plurality of differential delay lines coupled at a plurality of delay line junctions, wherein the plurality of differential delay lines are configured to provide a plurality of quadrature-phase shifts (see column 3, lines 38-43); a plurality of amplifiers coupled to the plurality of delay line junctions; and a buffer amplifier coupled to the plurality of amplifiers (108a, b) through a buffer coupling (at 110).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leung et al. US11283409 B2
Consider claim 10. A D-band (D band encompasses HB band mentioned at col 28 line 21-22) phase shifter circuit for (is considered intended use and given no patentable weight) a 5G or mm-wave communication module comprising: a first delay line (630-1, note transmission lines have resistance (see col 13, lines 42-44) and delays including the phase shifters); a second delay line (630-n)coupled to the first delay line at a first coupling (635); a third delay line (660-1)coupled to the second delay line at a second coupling (675); and a fourth delay line (660-m) coupled to the third delay line at a third coupling (665), wherein the first delay line, the second delay line, the third delay line, and the fourth delay line, are configured to provide a plurality of quadrature-phase shifts (received at each line which are aligned in Fig 6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
16. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 12 and 13 103 over Leung et al. US11283409 B2 in view of Examiner’s official notice.
17. Regarding claims 12 and 13. Leung et al discusses aligning the phases of the received signals, but doesn’t explicitly state that each of the quadrature-phase shifts is 90° phase or 120° phase. Although, likely inherent in Leung et al, the examiner takes Official notice that modulating quadrature phase signals at 90° phase or 120° phase is extremely well known in the art and would have been obvious, before the effective date to receive and compensate for noise such signals as taught by Leung et al since his system adjusts for received phase shifts (see col 7, lines 46-50).
18. Claims 2, 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hageman et al US 9093984 B1 in view of Leung et al. US11283409 B2
19. Regarding claim 2. Hageman et al, fails to teach more than two signals being phase shifted (i.e. delayed) coupled. However such is well known in the art as taught by Leung et al who teaches a plurality of differential delay lines (fig 6) comprises a first delay line (630-1), a second delay line (630-n)coupled to the first delay line at a first coupling (635); a third delay line (660-1) coupled to the second delay line at a second coupling (675); a fourth delay line (660-m) coupled to the third delay line (660-1) at a third coupling (665), wherein each of the first delay line, second delay line, and third delay line are configured to generate differential quadrature phases relative to each other (as controlled by the phase-shift controller 680) It would have been obvious, before the effective date to use the structure of Leung et al, prior to the combiner to allow for more signals giving the system more beam generating flexibility. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as analyzed above for the first half of claim 2.
20. Regarding claim 4. Leung et al teaches a first pair of amplifiers (620-1, 620-n) and a second pair of amplifiers (650-1, 650-m), wherein the first pair of amplifiers is coupled to the first coupling (635) and second coupling (675), and wherein the second pair of amplifiers (650-1, 650-m) is coupled to the third coupling (665) and the third delay line (660-1).
21. Claim 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hageman et al US 9093984 B1 in view of Leung et al. US11283409 B2 further in view of Examiner’s Official notice.
22. Regarding claim 17. Although both Hageman et al and Leung et al fail to teach at least one amplifier is an inverted amplifier, the examiner takes official notice that they are notoriously well-known in the art. It would have been obvious, before the effective date to have at least one inverted amplifier in the plurality taught by the combination in order to reach 180 degrees out of phase without a phase control circuit, thus reducing the overall cost.
23. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 12 and 13 above.
24. For what is called for in claim 20. See col 10, lines 48-54 of Leung which reads on the “meandering configuration”.
25. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hageman et al US 9093984 B1 in view of Two mm-wave Vector Modulator Active Phase shifters with Novel IQ generator in 28 nm FDSOI CMOS (hereafter Pepe) (cited by applicant).
26. Regarding claim 9. Hageman et al fails to teach wherein the buffer amplifier comprises a cascode amplifier. (Note, Hageman does discuss (col 2, lines 18-19) using buffer amplifies at the front end) However, Pepe teaches such (see abstract) for use with mmwave modulators. It would have been obvious to substitute one well known buffer for another for more stability at the higher frequencies.
27. Claims 3, 5 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein each of the first delay line, the second delay line, the third delay line, and the fourth delay line, comprise respective resistances, and wherein the resistances of the first delay line, the second delay line, the third delay line, and the fourth delay line, are configured with a ratio of 1:1.5:3 as called for in dependent claims 3 and 16.
The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the buffer coupling comprises a plurality of output delay lines joining each of the plurality of amplifiers to at least one other amplifier of the plurality of amplifiers wherein the plurality of amplifiers are configured to apply a plurality of weights to the signals at each of the plurality of delay line junctions as called for in claim 5.
28. Claim 11 is 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.
The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein each of the first delay line, the second delay line, the third delay line, and the fourth delay line comprise respective resistances, and wherein the resistances of the second delay line, the third delay line, and the fourth delay line, are configured with a ratio of 1:1.5:3 as called for in claim 11.
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al CN 113810022 A teaches 5-bit vector modulation type phase shifter based on X type inverter, applied to the 150 ~ 170GHz frequency band. In the invention, the input signal enters the 90 degrees bridge, the 90 degrees bridge outputs two paths of orthogonal signals, two paths of orthogonal signal respectively orderly passed through a variable gain amplifier and an X type inverter; the Wilkinson power synthesizer finishes the vector synthesis and outputs; The invention claims an X type inverter, comprising advantages of smaller area, less phase error, and realizing phase control of two paths of orthogonal signal based on the X type inverter, at the same time, realizing amplitude control of two paths of orthogonal signal through variable gain amplifier, finally controlling the phase of the output signal, realizing full 360 degrees range, 11.25 degrees stepping phase shifting effect; Based on this, the phase shifter provided by the invention can realize the accurate phase shift in the target frequency band, and obviously reduce the area of the phase shifter and the RMS phase shift error.
Patel CN-114641929 A teaches a phase shifter comprises a first port, a second port, a vector coupling of the first port and a signal phase generator. The signal phase generator includes a plurality of amplifiers coupling between the vector modulator and the second port. The signal phase generator also includes a plurality of capacitors coupling the plurality of amplifiers together to form a loop. Each respective capacitor of the plurality of capacitors coupling a loop between a respective pair of successive amplifiers of the plurality of amplifiers.
Conclusion
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 3pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646