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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both the macro cell base station (Fig. 1) and the load line when the initial bias signal and supply voltage is input into the PA (Fig. 7B) and reference character “3” has been used to designate both the small cell base station (Fig. 1) and the load line that shows how the load line changes if the bias signal was decreased at the same supply voltage as load line 4 (Fig. 7B).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: “1129” (Paragraph 79, line 4) and “300” (Paragraph 84, lines 2 and 3).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “320” (Fig. 2B), “512” (Fig. 5C), and “524a” (Fig. 5C).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the term “said” in lines 5 and 6. The term “said” should be replaced with “the”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The use of the terms “LTE®” (Paragraphs 53, 55, 58, 63, and 65), “Wi-Fi®” (Paragraphs 63, 65, and 195), and “BLUETOOTH®” (Paragraph 195), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2, 14, and 17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claims 2 and 17 recite the broad recitation “wherein the time-calibrated bias signal is time calibrated to within 2ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal”, and the claim also recites “preferably to within 1ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, more preferably to within 0.5ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, claims 2 and 17 will be treated as if only the broad recitation were present.
Additionally, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “wherein the radio frequency signal has a modulation bandwidth greater than 1 MHz”, and the claim also recites “preferably greater than 10MHz, more preferably greater than 20MHz, more preferably greater than 60MHz” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, claim 14 will be treated as if only the broad recitation were present.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 16-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4 of copending Application No. 18/612,200 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 16-19 are obvious over reference application claims 3-4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding instant application claim 1, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 1, except for reference application claim 3 additionally reciting “the bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier”. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 1 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. See detailed mapping of claim limitations below:
Instant Application (No. 18/612,429)
Reference Application (No. 18/612,200)
1. A method of amplifying a radio frequency signal using a power amplifier,
3. An amplification circuit comprising: a power amplifier stage of a power amplifier
the method comprising: inputting a supply voltage into the power amplifier;
configured to receive a supply voltage
inputting the radio frequency signal to be amplified into the power amplifier;
and an RF signal to be amplified;
inputting a time-calibrated bias signal into the power amplifier
the bias signal that is input into the power amplifier is time calibrated
that varies based on an envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal,
said bias signal varying based on the envelope signal
the envelope signal indicating an envelope of the radio frequency signal
an envelope signal produced from the RF signal
and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal;
the bias signal that is input into the power amplifier is time calibrated to within 3ns of an envelope of the RF signal.
and amplifying, by the power amplifier, the radio frequency signal based at least in part on the time-calibrated bias signal.
an RF signal to be amplified; a bias circuit configured to receive an envelope signal produced from the RF signal and input a bias signal into the power amplifier,
Regarding instant application claim 2, reference application claim 4 recites similar features to instant application claim 2, except for the differences discussed above and instant application claim 2 reciting time calibration to within 2ns (under claim interpretation discussed above), whereas reference application claim 4 recites time calibration to within 0.5ns. Therefore, the time calibration limitation of reference application claim 4 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of the time calibration limitation of instant application claim 2. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, reference application claim 4 meets instant application claim 2 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 3, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 3. The differences between reference application claim 3 and instant application claim 3 are identical to those between reference application claim 3 and instant application claim 1, except for instant application claim 3 additionally reciting “the bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier” that was lacking in instant application claim 1. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 3 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 7, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 7, with the exceptions discussed above for instant application claim 1. Furthermore, reference application claim 3 recites that the bias signal is time calibrated and based on the envelope signal that is based on the RF signal, so therefore, reference application claim 3 also recites the additional features of instant application claim 7. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 7 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 9, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 9, with the exceptions discussed above for instant application claims 1 and 7. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 9 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 16, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 16, with the exceptions discussed above for instant application claim 1, and instant application claim 16 not including all of the limitations present in instant application claim 1. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 16 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 17, reference application claim 4 recites similar features to instant application claim 17, with the exceptions discussed above for instant application claims 1 and 16. Therefore, reference application claim 4 meets instant application claim 17 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 18, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 18, with the exceptions discussed above for instant application claim 3, and instant application claim 18 not including all of the limitations present in instant application claim 3. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 18 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 4-6, 8, 10, and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 11, 14-15, and 17-18 of copending Application No. 18/612,200 in view of Wang et al. (Patent Publication Number CN 103,795,356 A), hereafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding instant application claim 4, reference application claim 14 recites similar features to instant application claim 4, except for excluding the features of the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal, and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal and including the features of “the increase in the bias signal causes a decrease in the output impedance of the power amplifier”. However, Wang teaches the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8), and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Abstract, lines 4-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference claim 14 to incorporate the additional features present in Wang, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of reference claim 14 (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12). Therefore, reference application claim 14 meets instant application claim 4 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 5, reference application claim 14 recites similar features to instant application claim 5, except for excluding the features of the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal, and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal and including the features of “wherein an increase in the envelope signal produces from the RF signal causes an increase in the bias signal”. However, Wang teaches the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8), and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Abstract, lines 4-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference claim 14 to incorporate the additional features present in Wang, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of reference claim 14 (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12). Therefore, reference application claim 14 meets instant application claim 5 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 6, reference application claim 15 recites similar features to instant application claim 6, except for excluding the features of the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal, and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal and including the features of “wherein an increase in the envelope signal produces from the RF signal causes an increase in the bias signal”. However, Wang teaches the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8), and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Abstract, lines 4-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference claim 15 to incorporate the additional features present in Wang, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of reference claim 15 (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12). Therefore, reference application claim 15 meets instant application claim 6 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 8, reference application claim 6 recites similar features to instant application claim 8, except for reference application claim 6 excluding the features of the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal, and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal and including the features of “the bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier”. However, Wang teaches the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8), and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Abstract, lines 4-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference claim 6 to incorporate the additional features present in Wang, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of reference claim 6 (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12). Therefore, reference application claim 6 meets instant application claim 8 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 10, reference application claim 11 recites similar features to instant application claim 10, except for reference application claim 11 excluding the features of the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal, and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal and including the features of “the bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier”. However, Wang teaches the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8), and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Abstract, lines 4-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference claim 11 to incorporate the additional features present in Wang, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of reference claim 11 (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12). Therefore, reference application claim 11 meets instant application claim 10 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 14, reference application claim 17 recites similar features to instant application claim 14, except for reference application claim 17 excluding the features of the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal, and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, including the features of “the bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier”, and replacing broad limitation “modulation bandwidth greater than 1 MHz” of instant application claim 14 with strict limitation “modulation bandwidth greater than 60 MHz”. Therefore, the modulation bandwidth limitation of reference application claim 17 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of the modulation bandwidth limitation of instant application claim 14. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, Wang teaches the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8), and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Abstract, lines 4-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference claim 17 to incorporate the additional features present in Wang, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of reference claim 17 (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12). Therefore, reference application claim 17 meets instant application claim 14 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 15, reference application claim 18 recites similar features to instant application claim 15, except for reference application claim 18 excluding the features of the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal, and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal and including the features of “the bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier”. However, Wang teaches the bias signal being a time-calibrated bias signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8), and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Abstract, lines 4-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference claim 18 to incorporate the additional features present in Wang, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of reference claim 18 (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12). Therefore, reference application claim 18 meets instant application claim 15 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 19, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 19, with the exceptions discussed above for instant application claim 1. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 19 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 11-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/612,200 in view of Balteanu et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2019/0123690 A1), as cited by applicant, hereafter referred to as Balteanu.
Regarding instant application claim 11, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 11, with the exceptions discussed above for instant application claim 1, but still fails to disclose “wherein the supply voltage is varied based on the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal”. However, Balteanu teaches wherein the supply voltage is varied based on the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal (Balteanu, Fig. 4A, see connection between envelope 405 and voltage supply 411). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference application claim 3 to incorporate the teachings of Balteanu to include the variable supply voltage of Balteanu in the circuit of reference application claim 3, which would have the effect of reducing unnecessary power consumption. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 11 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 12, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 12, with the exceptions discussed above for instant application claims 1 and 11, but still fails to disclose “generating the supply voltage based on the radio frequency signal”. However, Balteanu teaches generating the supply voltage based on the radio frequency signal (Balteanu, Fig. 4A, see connection between envelope 405 [based on the radio frequency signal] and voltage supply 411). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified reference application claim 3 to incorporate the teachings of Balteanu to include the radio frequency signal based supply voltage of Balteanu in the circuit of reference application claim 3, which would have the effect of reducing unnecessary power consumption. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 12 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant application claim 13, reference application claim 3 recites similar features to instant application claim 13, with the exceptions listed above for instant application claims 1 and 11-12. Therefore, reference application claim 3 meets instant application claim 13 under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-2, 7-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Balteanu discloses:
A method (Balteanu, Fig. 4B) of amplifying a radio frequency signal (Fig. 4B, see RFin and RFout) using a power amplifier (Fig. 4B, 420), the method comprising: inputting a supply voltage into the power amplifier (Fig. 4B, see connection between 411 and 420); inputting the radio frequency signal to be amplified into the power amplifier (Fig. 4B, see connection between RFin and 420); inputting a time-calibrated bias signal into the power amplifier (Fig. 4B, see connection between bias timing component 427, bias component 412, and power amplifier 420) that varies based on an envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal (Fig. 4B, see connection between envelope signal at port 405 and bias component 412), the envelope signal indicating an envelope of the radio frequency signal (Paragraph 41, lines 8-11) and amplifying, by the power amplifier, the radio frequency signal based at least in part on the time-calibrated bias signal (Fig. 4B, see connection between bias component 412 and power amplifier 420), but fails to disclose and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal.
However, Wang teaches and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8).
Balteanu and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include the time-calibration level of Wang for the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of Balteanu (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 2, Balteanu fails to disclose:
wherein the time-calibrated bias signal is time calibrated to within 2ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, preferably to within 1ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, more preferably to within 0.5ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal.
However, Wang further teaches wherein the time-calibrated bias signal is time calibrated to within 2ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, preferably to within 1ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, more preferably to within 0.5ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8).
Balteanu and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include the time-calibration level of Wang for the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of Balteanu (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 7, Balteanu further discloses:
further comprising generating the time-calibrated bias signal based on the radio frequency signal (Balteanu, Fig. 4B, consider connection between bias component 412 and envelope signal, which is based on the radio frequency signal).
Regarding claim 8, Balteanu further discloses:
wherein generating the time-calibrated bias signal includes combining the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal with a constant time-calibrated bias signal (Balteanu, Paragraph 45, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 9, Balteanu further discloses:
wherein generating the time-calibrated bias signal includes introducing a time delay calibration to the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal (Balteanu, Fig. 4B, see envelope timing component 429).
Regarding claim 10, Balteanu further discloses:
wherein the supply voltage is a constant voltage signal (Balteanu, Fig. 4B, see Vcc).
Regarding claim 11, Balteanu further discloses:
wherein the supply voltage is varied based on the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal (Balteanu, Fig. 4B, consider how supply voltage VccE is varied based on envelope signal).
Regarding claim 12, Balteanu further discloses:
further comprising generating the supply voltage based on the radio frequency signal (Balteanu, Fig. 4B, consider that the envelope signal is based on the radio frequency signal, and that the supply voltage VccE is based on the envelope signal).
Regarding claim 13, Balteanu further discloses:
wherein generating the supply voltage includes introducing a time delay calibration to the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal (Balteanu, Fig. 4B, see envelope timing component 429).
Regarding claim 14, Balteanu fails to disclose:
wherein the radio frequency signal has a modulation bandwidth greater than 1MHz, preferably greater than 10MHz, more preferably greater than 20MHz, more preferably greater than 60MHz.
However, Wang further teaches wherein the radio frequency signal has a modulation bandwidth greater than 1MHz, preferably greater than 10MHz, more preferably greater than 20MHz, more preferably greater than 60MHz (Wang, Paragraph 4, lines 1-7).
Balteanu and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include the modulation bandwidth of Wang in the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of providing an appropriate signal bandwidth for wireless communications systems (Wang, Paragraph 4, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 16, Balteanu discloses:
A method (Balteanu, Fig. 4B) of biasing a power amplifier (Fig. 4B, 420), the method comprising: generating, based on an radio frequency signal to be amplified (Fig. 4B, see RFin), a time-calibrated bias signal (Fig. 4B, see bias timing component 427 and bias component 412) that varies based on an envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal (Fig. 4B, see connection between envelope signal at port 405 and bias component 412), the envelope signal indicating an envelope of the radio frequency signal (Paragraph 41, lines 8-11); and inputting the time-calibrated bias signal into the power amplifier (Fig. 4B, see connection between bias component 412 and power amplifier 420), but fails to disclose and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal.
However, Wang teaches and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8).
Balteanu and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include the time-calibration level of Wang for the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of Balteanu (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 17, Balteanu fails to disclose:
wherein the time-calibrated bias signal is time calibrated to within 2ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, preferably to within 1ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, more preferably to within 0.5ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal.
However, Wang further teaches wherein the time-calibrated bias signal is time calibrated to within 2ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, preferably to within 1ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal, more preferably to within 0.5ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8).
Balteanu and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include the time-calibration level of Wang for the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of Balteanu (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 19, Balteanu discloses:
An amplification system (Balteanu, Fig. 4B) comprising: a power amplifier (Fig. 4B, 420) configured to receive a supply voltage (Fig. 4B, see connection between 411 and 420) and an radio frequency signal to be amplified (Fig. 4B, see connection between RFin and 420); a biasing circuit (Fig. 4B, 412) configured to input a time-calibrated bias signal into the power amplifier (Fig. 4B, see connection between bias timing component 427, bias component 412, and power amplifier 420) that varies based on an envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal (Fig. 4B, see connection between envelope signal at port 405 and bias component 412), the envelope signal indicating an envelope of the radio frequency signal (Paragraph 41, lines 8-11); and an output stage (Fig. 4B, 420) configured to output an amplified radio frequency signal generated by the power amplifier (Fig. 4B, see output signal RFout) based at least in part on the time-calibrated bias signal (Fig. 4B, see connection between 420 and 412), but fails to disclose and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal.
However, Wang teaches and the time-calibrated bias signal being time calibrated to within 3ns of the envelope of the radio frequency signal (Wang, Abstract, lines 4-8).
Balteanu and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include the time-calibration level of Wang for the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of reducing signal distortion in the circuit of Balteanu (Wang, Abstract, lines 8-12).
Claims 3-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu in view of Wang as applied to claims 1 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Pehlke et al. (Patent Number US 6,566,944 B1), hereafter referred to as Pehlke.
Regarding claim 3, Balteanu and Wang fail to disclose:
wherein the time-calibrated bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier.
However, Pehlke teaches wherein the time-calibrated bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier (Pehlke, Col. 9, lines 52-64).
Balteanu, Wang, and Pehlke are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Pehlke to include the output impedance modulation circuitry of Pehlke in the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of reducing voltage clipping of the signal of Balteanu (Pehlke, Col. 9, lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 4, Balteanu further discloses:
wherein an increase in the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal causes an increase in the time-calibrated bias signal (Balteanu, Paragraph 44, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Balteanu and Wang fail to disclose:
wherein an increase in the time-calibrated bias signal causes a decrease in the output impedance of the power amplifier.
However, Pehlke further teaches wherein an increase in the time-calibrated bias signal causes a decrease in the output impedance of the power amplifier (Pehlke, Col. 4, lines 31-39).
Balteanu, Wang, and Pehlke are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Pehlke to include the output impedance modulation circuitry of Pehlke in the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of preventing overvoltage circumstances (Pehlke, Col. 4, lines 31-39).
Regarding claim 18, Balteanu and Wang fail to disclose:
wherein the time-calibrated bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier.
However, Pehlke teaches wherein the time-calibrated bias signal dynamically modulates an output impedance of the power amplifier (Pehlke, Col. 9, lines 52-64).
Balteanu, Wang, and Pehlke are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Pehlke to include the output impedance modulation circuitry of Pehlke in the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of reducing voltage clipping of the signal of Balteanu (Pehlke, Col. 9, lines 52-64).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu in view of Wang and Pehlke as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Puliafico et al. (Patent Number US 9,553,550 B2), hereafter referred to as Puliafico.
Regarding claim 6, Balteanu, Wang, and Pehlke fail to disclose:
wherein an increase in the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal causes an increase in a load line of the power amplifier.
However, Puliafico teaches wherein an increase in the envelope signal produced from the radio frequency signal causes an increase in a load line of the power amplifier (Puliafico, Col. 41, lines 25-34).
Balteanu, Wang, Pehlke, and Puliafico are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Puliafico to include the load line of Puliafico in the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of improving impedance matching of the circuit of Balteanu (Puliafico, Col. 41, lines 35-39).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khlat (Patent Publication Number US 2022/0052651 A1), hereafter referred to as Khlat.
Regarding claim 15, Balteanu and Wang fail to disclose:
wherein the radio frequency signal is a 5G mmWave signal.
However, Khlat teaches wherein the radio frequency signal is a 5G mmWave signal (Khlat, Paragraph 3, lines 1-15).
Balteanu, Wang, and Khlat are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving power amplifiers used in radio frequency communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Balteanu to incorporate the teachings of Khlat to include the 5G mmWave signal of Khlat in the circuit of Balteanu, which would have the effect of providing an appropriate signal for wireless communications circuits (Khlat, Paragraph 3, lines 1-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khlat et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2020/0389132 A1) discloses (Paragraph 4) a 5G mmWave device with a 100 MHz modulation bandwidth.
Elsayed et al. (Patent Number US 10,310,528 B1) discloses (Fig. 1) a timing calibration circuit including a constant bias current.
Sharma et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2018/0198424 A1) discloses (Fig. 4) a dynamic power amplifier bias based on an envelope tracking system.
Nobbe et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2014/0184337 A1) discloses (Fig. 1) a dynamic power amplifier bias based on an envelope tracking system.
Khesbak et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2012/0146734 A1) discloses (Fig. 6) a dynamic power amplifier bias based on an envelope tracking system.
Shi et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2003/0109233 A1) discloses (Fig. 2) a power amplifier system with envelope time delay calibration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance T Bartol whose telephone number is (703)756-1267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. CT, Alternating Fridays 6:30 - 3:00.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/LANCE TORBJORN BARTOL/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights