DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOTO et al. (US 2021/0328604 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0381032 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Goto discloses, in Fig. 1, a signal generation device (Goto, Abstract, Title).
An RF converter that modulates an analog signal for testing and outputs an analog RF signal (Goto, FIG. 1; paragraph [0017], [0024]).
An RF amplifier (PA 21) that includes a variable attenuator (ATT 26) which adjusts an amplitude of the analog RF signal by an attenuation amount (Goto, FIG. 1; paragraph [0024], [0025]).
A control unit (RF converter control unit 31 / CTM 18) that performs control of the RF converter and the RF amplifier (Goto, FIG. 1; paragraph [0019], [0021]).
The control performed by the control unit includes adjusting an output of the RF converter based on a threshold level (reducing the baseband module power value to maintain an input level below an input limit value) (Goto, FIG. 1; paragraph [0006], [0044]).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Goto reproduced for ease of reference.
Goto, however, does not explicitly teach utilizing a detector to output a "detected voltage" to adjust the RF converter output.
Goto also fails to teach determining whether the RF converter and the RF amplifier are connected to each other based on a change in a detected voltage when the attenuation amount of the variable attenuator is changed. Instead, Goto relies on a dedicated hardware component ("cable sensor 28") to check for physical cable disconnection based on the raw presence or absence of a signal at the connection port (Goto, FIG. 6; paragraph [0105]).
Li, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a dynamic, closed-loop diagnostic and protection control system comprising a detector (load regulation 1021) that continuously samples a "detected voltage" (feedback signal Vfb) to adjust the output power stage (switch module 101) against a specific reference threshold voltage (Li, FIG. 1; paragraph [0018], [0021]).
PNG
media_image2.png
487
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Li reproduced for ease of reference.
Li further teaches a soft-off control circuit (1041) configured to determine an operational state error (over-voltage or reverse current charging) based on dynamically tracking voltage changes, calculating a voltage differential, and altering internal reference thresholds via a continuous, iterative charging/discharging feedback loop (Li, FIG. 2, FIG. 5; paragraph [0024], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the control unit (31/18) and connection-checking architecture of Goto by integrating the threshold-tracking and voltage-differential feedback logic taught by Li.
Specifically, instead of relying on Goto's separate, static hardware "cable sensor 28" to check connection status, the control unit would be programmed to intentionally change (e.g., modulate or decrease) the attenuation amount of the existing variable attenuator (ATT 26) and actively monitor the resulting change or differential drop in the downstream voltage via a power detection feedback loop.
The motivation to implement this modification is to minimize manufacturing costs, reduce circuit size, and decrease overall structural complexity by eliminating the requirement for a separate, dedicated physical hardware component ("cable sensor 28") to check cable continuity (Goto, paragraph [0105]).
By borrowing the dynamic threshold-comparison and voltage-differential monitoring concepts of Li (Li, paragraph [0005], [0024]), a signal generator can execute an entirely software-driven continuity diagnostic test utilizing its existing internal variable attenuator and power detector components, thereby maximizing hardware efficiency and enhancing automated self-diagnostic accuracy.
Wherein per claim 2, The control unit performs a comparison process of comparing the output power/voltage level with a threshold value (Pth (Goto, FIG. 1; paragraphs [0043]-[0046], [0060]).
The control unit causes the RF converter to decrease the power value of the digital baseband signal (and consequently the analog RF signal) to output the signal having decreased power in a case where the level exceeds the threshold limit (Goto, FIG. 1; paragraphs [0060], [0088]).
Goto, however, does not explicitly teach decreasing the power "by a certain amount" and performing the comparison process again (an iterative, incremental checking loop) if the detected voltage continues to exceed the first threshold value. Goto primarily teaches a single-step reduction to a "system setting value" or "maximum allowable value" (Goto, paragraphs [0080], [0087]).
Li, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a dynamic safety control circuit that utilizes an iterative, continuous loop of comparing a sensed voltage against a threshold and incrementally adjusting a signal (repeating the comparison and charging/discharging adjustment cycle) until the operational procedure is safely completed (Li, FIG. 1, FIG. 6; paragraphs [0024], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the power reduction step of Goto to incorporate the iterative re-evaluation loop taught by Li.
Specifically, instead of a one-time reduction to a baseline system value, the control unit in Goto would be programmed to decrease the RF converter's power by a certain incremental amount and perform the threshold comparison process again, repeating this loop until the excessive input state is resolved.
The motivation to implement this modification is to provide a safer, more granular, and highly stabilized power reduction mechanism that prevents over-correction (e.g., dropping power too drastically and interrupting the test signal completely).
By borrowing the iterative, continuous safety loop concepts of Li (Li, paragraphs [0024], [0033]), a signal generator ensures the hardware is continuously protected from fluctuating excessive loads while maintaining the highest possible safe output level for ongoing RF testing operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 2 and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 is allowable because the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the specific algorithmic sequence used to determine the connection status between the RF converter and the RF amplifier. Because Claim 3 depends on Claim 2 but adds the exact same physical connection diagnostic algorithm found in independent Claim 4, it overcomes the prior art for the same reasons. While Goto teaches reducing RF power when a threshold is exceeded to prevent hardware overload (Goto, FIG. 1; paragraphs [0006], [0044]), and Li teaches an iterative voltage-checking loop for safely shutting down a circuit (Li, FIG. 1, FIG. 6; paragraphs [0024], [0046]), neither reference discloses the specific diagnostic method of setting a detected voltage as a reference value, calculating a differential voltage after decreasing an attenuation amount, comparing the differential to a second threshold, and executing an iterative rechecking process up to a predetermined number of times to confirm a physical connection. Because this precise sequence of steps for conducting a software-based continuity diagnostic is completely absent from the cited art, the method of Claim 3 is novel and non-obvious.
Claim 4 is allowed.
Claim 4 is allowable because the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the specific algorithmic sequence used to determine the connection status between the RF converter and the RF amplifier. While Goto discloses performing a comparison process against a threshold and decreasing RF power when that threshold is exceeded to prevent hardware overload (Goto, FIG. 1; paragraphs [0006], [0044]), and Li teaches an iterative voltage-checking loop for safely shutting down a power converter (Li, FIG. 1, FIG. 6; paragraphs [0024], [0046]), neither reference discloses the specific diagnostic method of setting a detected voltage as a reference value, calculating a differential voltage after decreasing an attenuation amount, comparing the differential to a second threshold, and executing an iterative rechecking process up to a predetermined number of times to confirm a physical connection. Because this precise sequence of steps for conducting a software-based continuity diagnostic via variable attenuation is completely absent from the cited art, the method of Claim 4 is novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
The prior arts Park, Kimura, Kim, Nakano, and Ono Hiroshi are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0659. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Jessica Han can be reached on (571) 272-2078. 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.
/HAFIZUR RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843.
Prosecution Insights