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 because Fig. 1 shows transistors 122 and 142 as N-Type transistors, however, the specification refers to these transistors as P-Type transistors. Fig. 1 should be amended to show transistors 122 and 142 as P-Type transistors.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: On claim 6, lines 3-4, replace “receive a second source current from the source node via from its source” with “receive a second source current from the source node via its source”. Claims 7-8 are likewise objected to under this logic by virtue of their dependency on claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
The terms “tightly”, “substantially parallel”, and “strong mutual coupling” in claim 1, lines 11-12, are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “tightly”, “substantially parallel”, and “strong mutual coupling” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what layout is required for the third inductor, the fourth inductor, and the fifth inductor. For purposes of examination, the third inductor, the fourth inductor, and the fifth inductor will be treated as if they were coupled together to provide mutual coupling between the three inductors. Claims 2-14 are likewise rejected under this logic by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
The term “substantially greater” in claims 7 and 8, lines 1-2, is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially greater” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what the relationship is between the transconductance of the first NMOST (for claim 7) or the first PMOST (for claim 8) and the admittance of the first capacitor and the admittance of the second capacitor. For purposes of examination, the claims will be treated as if the transconductance of the first NMOST/PMOST is greater than the admittance of the first capacitor and the admittance of the second capacitor.
The term “approximately the same” in claim 9, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately the same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear how similar the AC components of the first signal and the second signal are to each other. For purposes of examination, the claimed will be treated as if the AC components of the first signal and the second signal are within 10% of each other.
The term “approximately equal” in claims 10 and 11, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “approximately equal” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not by reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear how similar the frequency of the resonant network formed by the first inductor and the first capacitor (for claim 10) or the second inductor and the second capacitor (for claim 11) is to the frequency of the first signal and the second signal. For purposes of examination, the frequency of the resonant networks will be treated as if it were within 10% of the frequency of the first and second signals.
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 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Patent Publication Number CN 116,859,341 A), hereafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Gu (Patent Publication Number US 2024/0136982 A1), hereafter referred to as Gu.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses:
A two-stage complementary amplifier (TSCA) (Zhang, Fig. 6) comprising: a common-source input stage (Fig. 6, see “Input Stage” in modified Fig. 6 below) comprising a n-type common-source amplifier (NCSA) (Fig. 6, see “Input stage” in modified Fig. 6 below), configured to receive a first signal (Fig. 6, IN) and output a third signal (Fig. 6, see connection between Input Stage and Output Stage in modified Fig. 6 below) across a first inductor (Fig. 6, see L1 in modified Fig. 6 below); a common-gate output stage (Fig. 6, see “Output Stage” in modified Fig. 6 below) comprising a n-type common-gate amplifier (NCGA) (Fig. 6, see “Output Stage” in modified Fig. 6 below) configured to receive the third signal via a first capacitor (Fig. 6, C1) but fails to disclose [the common-source input stage comprising a] stack-up of and a p-type common-source amplifier (PCSA), [configured to receive] and a second signal, [and output] and a fourth signal [across] and a second inductor, respectively, [the common-gate output stage comprising a ] stack-up of and a p-type common-gate amplifier (PCGA), [configured to receive] and the fourth signal [via] and a second capacitor, respectively, and output a fifth signal and a sixth signal across a third inductor and a fourth inductor, respectively; and a fifth inductor terminated with a load, wherein the third inductor, the fourth inductor, and the fifth inductor are laid out tightly and substantially parallel to have strong mutual coupling.
However, Gu teaches [the common-source input stage comprising a] stack-up of and a p-type common-source amplifier (PCSA) (Gu, Fig. 4, MP1 and MP4), [configured to receive] and a second signal (Fig. 4, in-), [and output] and a fourth signal [across] and a second inductor, respectively (consider utilizing the teachings of Gu to include a complementary P-Type implementation of Zhang, and Zhang, Fig. 6, L1), [the common-gate output stage comprising a ] stack-up of and a p-type common-gate amplifier (PCGA) (Gu, Fig. 4, MP5 and MP6), [configured to receive] and the fourth signal [via] and a second capacitor, respectively (consider utilizing the teachings of Gu to include a complementary P-Type implementation of Zhang, and Zhang, Fig. 6, C1), and output a fifth signal (Gu, Fig. 4, out-) and a sixth signal (Fig. 4, out+) across a third inductor (Fig. 4, see portion of inductor coupled to out-) and a fourth inductor (Fig. 4, see portion of inductor coupled to out+), respectively; and a fifth inductor (Fig. 4, see inductor coupled to RL) terminated with a load (Fig. 4, RL), wherein the third inductor, the fourth inductor, and the fifth inductor are laid out tightly and substantially parallel to have strong mutual coupling (Fig. 4, see coupling of inductors coupled to out-, out+, and RL).
Zhang and Gu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving 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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Gu to include a complementary P-Type implementation of Zhang, which would have the effect of enabling amplification of differential signals with high efficiency (Paragraph 75, lines 18-24).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses:
wherein: the NCSA comprises a stack-up of a first NMOST (n-channel metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor) (Zhang, Fig. 6, see N1 in modified Fig. 6 above) and a second NMOST (Fig. 6, see N2 in modified Fig. 6 above); the first NMOST is configured in a common-source topology to receive the first signal from its gate (Fig. 6, consider connection between IN and gate of N1) and outputs a first internal current via its drain (Fig. 6, consider output of N1); and the second NMOST is configured in a cascode topology (Fig. 6, see connection between N1 and N2) to direct the first internal current received from its source to the first inductor via its drain (Fig. 6, see connection between drain of N2 and L1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Gu further discloses:
wherein: the PCSA comprises a stack-up of a first PMOST (p-channel metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor) (Zhang, Fig. 6, see N1 in modified Fig. 6 above, consider utilizing the teachings of Gu as described above for claim 1 to include a complementary implementation of Zhang using P-Type transistors) and a second PMOST (Fig. 6, see N2 in modified Fig. 6 above); the first PMOST is configured in a common-source topology to receive the second signal from its gate (Fig. 6, consider connection between IN and gate of N1) and outputs a second internal current via its drain (Fig. 6, consider output of N1); and the second PMOST is configured in a cascode topology (Fig. 6, see connection between N1 and N2) to direct the second internal current received from its source to the second inductor via its drain (Fig. 6, see connection between drain of N2 and L1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Gu further discloses:
wherein: the NCGA comprises a stack-up of a first NMOST (n-channel metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor) (Zhang, Fig. 6, see N3 in modified Fig. 6 above) and a second NMOST (Fig. 6, see N4 in modified Fig. 6 above); the first NMOST is configured in a common-gate topology (Fig. 6, see connections of N3 in modified Fig. 6 above) to receive a first current from a source node via its source (Fig. 6, see source of N3) and outputs a first internal current via its drain (Fig. 6, see drain of N3); the second NMOST is configured in a cascode topology (Fig. 6, see connections of N4 in modified Fig. 6 above) and the source node is coupled to the third signal and the fourth signal via the first capacitor and the second capacitor, respectively (Fig. 6, consider connection between source of N3 and “Input Stage” via C1 in modified Fig. 6 above), but fails to disclose [the second NMOST] to direct the first internal current from its source to the third inductor via its drain.
However, Gu further teaches [the second NMOST] to direct the first internal current from its source to the third inductor via its drain (Gu, Fig. 4, see connection between drain of MN3 and inductor coupled to inductor at out-).
Zhang and Gu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving 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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Gu to include a complementary P-Type implementation of Zhang, which would have the effect of enabling amplification of differential signals with high efficiency (Paragraph 75, lines 18-24).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Gu further discloses:
wherein: the PCGA comprises a stack-up of a first PMOST (p-channel metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor) (Zhang, Fig. 6, see N3 in modified Fig. 6 above, consider utilizing the teachings of Gu as described above for claim 1 to include a complementary implementation of Zhang using P-Type transistors) and a second PMOST (Fig. 6, see N4 in modified Fig. 6 above); the first PMOST is configured in a common-gate topology (Fig. 6, see connections of N3 in modified Fig. 6 above) to receive a second source current from the source node via from its source (Fig. 6, see source of N3)and outputs a second internal current via its drain (Fig. 6, see drain of N3); the second PMOST is configured in a cascode topology (Fig. 6, see connections of N4 in modified Fig. 6 above) but fails to disclose [the second PMOST] to direct the second internal current from its source to the fourth inductor via its drain.
However, Gu further teaches [the second PMOST] to direct the second internal current from its source to the fourth inductor via its drain (Gu, Fig. 4, see connection between drain of MN3 and inductor coupled to inductor at out-).
Zhang and Gu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving 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 Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Gu to include a complementary P-Type implementation of Zhang, which would have the effect of enabling amplification of differential signals with high efficiency (Paragraph 75, lines 18-24).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang further discloses:
wherein the first inductor and the first capacitor form a resonant network at a frequency approximately equal to a frequency of the first signal and the second signal (Zhang, Page 5, Paragraph 3, lines 1-6, consider that L1 and C1 of modified Fig. 6 above are configured to work within the frequency of the RF signal).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Gu further discloses:
wherein the second inductor and the second capacitor form a resonant network at a frequency approximately equal to a frequency of the first signal and the second signal (Zhang, Page 5, Paragraph 3, lines 1-6, consider that L1 and C1 of modified Fig. 6 above are configured to work within the frequency of the RF signal).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Gu further discloses:
wherein a center tap of the first inductor connects to a power supply node (Zhang, Fig. 6 see connection between L1 and PS in modified Fig. 6 above), and a center tap of the second inductor connects to a ground node (Fig. 6, see connection between L1 and ground via a capacitor in modified Fig. 6 above).
Claims 4, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Gu as applied to claims 3, 1, and 1, respectively, above, and further in view of Xie et al. (Patent Number US 10,447,218 B1), hereafter referred to as Xie.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang and Gu fail to disclose:
wherein a source of the first NMOST and a source of the first PMOST are directly connected.
However, Xie teaches wherein a source of the first NMOST (Xie, Fig. 3, see source of transistor of 320 coupled to VN+) and a source of the first PMOST (Fig. 3, see source of transistor of 310 coupled to VP+) are directly connected (Fig. 3, see direction connection of sources of transistors of 310 and 320).
Zhang, Gu, and Xie are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifier circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Xie to include the source connection of Xie in the circuit of Zhang, which would have the effect of reducing the adverse effects of ground bounce and source degeneration (Xie, Col. 1, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang and Gu fail to disclose:
wherein the first signal and the second signal have different DC (direct current) components but approximately the same AC (alternate current) component.
However, Xie teaches wherein the first signal and the second signal have different DC (direct current) components (Xie, consider equations 3-6, and that components of signal VP and VN have different DC components) but approximately the same AC (alternate current) component (Xie, consider equations 3-6, and that corresponding components of signal VP and VN have same AC components).
Zhang, Gu, and Xie are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifier circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Xie to include the signal of Xie in the circuit of Zhang, which would have the effect of reducing the adverse effects of ground bounce and source degeneration (Xie, Col. 1, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang and Gu fail to disclose:
further comprising a third capacitor inserted in parallel with the third inductor to form a resonance with the third inductor, and a fourth capacitor inserted in parallel with the fourth inductor to form a resonance with the fourth inductor.
However, Xie teaches further comprising a third capacitor (Xie, Fig. 2A, 233) inserted in parallel with the third inductor to form a resonance with the third inductor (consider connection of the inductor across outputs of Gu and connection of capacitor 233 across outputs of Xie, and Xie, Col. 4, lines 15-17), and a fourth capacitor inserted in parallel with the fourth inductor to form a resonance with the fourth inductor (consider connection of the inductor across outputs of Gu and connection of capacitor 233 across outputs of Xie, and Xie, Col. 4, lines 15-17).
Zhang, Gu, and Xie are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifier circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Xie to include the capacitor of Xie in the circuit of Zhang, which would have the effect of tuning the impedance of the load of Zhang to an optimum value (Xie, Col. 4, lines 15-17).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Gu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ohannaidh (Patent Publication Number US 2005/0189987 A1), hereafter referred to as Ohannaidh.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang and Gu fail to disclose:
wherein a transconductance of the first NMOST is substantially greater than an admittance of the first capacitor and an admittance of the second capacitor.
However, Ohannaidh teaches wherein a transconductance of the first NMOST is substantially greater than an admittance of the first capacitor and an admittance of the second capacitor (Ohannaidh, Paragraph 36, lines 15-19).
Zhang, Gu, and Ohannaidh are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifier circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Ohannaidh to include the transconductance to admittance relation of Ohannaidh in the circuit of Zhang, which would have the effect of reducing capacitance sizes (Ohannaidh, Paragraph 46, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang and Gu fail to disclose:
wherein a transconductance of the first PMOST is substantially greater than an admittance of the first capacitor and an admittance of the second capacitor.
However, Ohannaidh teaches wherein a transconductance of the first PMOST is substantially greater than an admittance of the first capacitor and an admittance of the second capacitor (Ohannaidh, Paragraph 36, lines 15-19, consider also Paragraph 24, lines 13-16).
Zhang, Gu, and Ohannaidh are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifier circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Ohannaidh to include the transconductance to admittance relation of Ohannaidh in the circuit of Zhang, which would have the effect of reducing capacitance sizes (Ohannaidh, Paragraph 46, lines 5-7).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Gu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohammadnezhad et al. (Patent Number US 11,159,191 B1), hereafter referred to as Mohammadnezhad.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang and Gu fail to disclose:
wherein a center tap of the third inductor connects to a power supply node, and a center tap of the fourth inductor connects to a ground node.
However, Mohammadnezhad teaches wherein a center tap of the third inductor connects to a power supply node (Mohammadnezhad, Fig. 4, see connection between 140c, 140d, and Vdd via 156), and a center tap of the fourth inductor connects to a ground node (Fig. 4, see connection between 140a, 140b, and ground via 152).
Zhang, Gu, and Mohammadnezhad are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving amplifier circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Mohammadnezhad to include the center taps of Mohammadnezhad in the circuit of Zhang in view of Gu, which would have the effect of enabling using the circuit of Zhang for signals containing multiple carrier frequencies (Mohammadnezhad, Col. 2, lines 13-33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2022/0263479 A1) discloses (Fig. 4) a two-stage complementary amplifier.
Gathman (Patent Publication Number US 2017/0179910 A1) discloses (Fig. 8) a complementary amplifier.
Huang et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2018/0212296 A1) discloses (Fig. 2A) a cascode differential amplifier.
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