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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Pengelly (Fig. 5); 8,749,306].
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Pengelly discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a main switched capacitor power amplifier (36) electrically coupled to a load (load of 30), a peak SCPA (46) electrically coupled to the load (load of 30), and a shunt inductor (L6) electrically coupled between the peak SCPA (46) and the load (load of 30).
Regarding claim 2, Pengelly further comprising a series capacitor (C5) electrically coupled between the peak SCPA (46) and the shunt inductor (L6).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, wherein the main switched capacitor power amplifier (36) and the peak SCPA (46) are powered via a single supply voltage.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Pengelly (Fig. 5); 8,749,306] in view of [Cabrera et al (Fig. 8); 10,270,396].
Pengelly discloses all the limitations in claim 3 except for that the load comprises a transformer electrically coupled to a load resistance. Cabrera et al discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a transformer (T3) electrically coupled to a load resistance (ROUT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to have employed the transformer electrically coupled to a load resistance at the output terminal (the terminal generating the output signal RFOUT in Fig. 5 of Pengelly) of Pengelly, such as taught by Cabrera et al (Fig. 8) in order to provide the advantageous benefit of improving the signal transmission of the amplifier circuit.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Tahara et al (Fig. 1); 2024/0,113,668] in view of [Pengelly (Fig. 5); 8,749,306].
Regarding claim 8, Tahara et al discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a controller (3), a transceiver (1) communicatively coupled to the controller (3) and wherein the transceiver (1) comprising a power amplifier (11, 12) and an antenna circuit (2) electrically coupled to the transceiver (1), wherein the power amplifier (11, 12) comprises a main switched capacitor power amplifier (11) electrically coupled to the antenna circuit (2), and a peak SCPA (12) electrically coupled to the antenna circuit (2). As described above, Tahara et al discloses all the limitations in claim 8 except for that the shunt inductor electrically coupled between the peak SCPA and the antenna circuit. Pengelly discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a shunt inductor (L6) electrically coupled between the peak SCPA (46) and the antenna circuit (load of 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to have employed the shunt inductor at between the peak SCPA and the antenna circuit of Tahara et al (Fig. 1), such as taught by Pengelly (Fig. 5) in order to provide the advantageous benefit of stabilizing the variation of the gain of the amplifier circuit.
Regarding claim 9, Tahara et al in view of Pengelly further comprises a series capacitor (C5) electrically coupled between the peak SCPA (46) and the shunt inductor (L6).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation recited in claim 14 is obvious based on the intended use of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, Tahara et al in view of Pengelly discloses the method step of transmitting the output signal (RF OUT) via an antenna (RF load of Fig. 5 or 2).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Tahara et al (Fig. 1); 2024/0,113,668] in view of [Pengelly (Fig. 5); 8,749,306] in further view of [Cellier et al (Fig. 1); 8,937,507].
Tahara et al in view of Pengelly discloses all the limitations in claim 13 except for that the power amplifier comprising a class D amplifier. Cellier et al discloses an amplifier circuit comprising a class D amplifier (104, 105). Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute Cellier et al’s class D amplifiers (104 and 105 in Fig. 1 of Cellier et al) in place of Tahara et al’s amplifier (11 and 12 in Fig1 of Tahara et al) since Tahara et al discloses a generic power amplifier thereby suggesting that any equivalent power amplifier would have been usable in Tahara et al’s reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 10-12 and 18-20 are 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 4 and 18, the closest prior art of record, Pengelly does not disclose the following limitation: the main SCPA comprises a plurality of first cells electrically coupled in parallel and each first cell comprising a first inverter, a first capacitor electrically coupled in series with the first inverter, the peak SCPA comprises a plurality of second cells electrically coupled in parallel and each second cell comprising a second inverter, a second capacitor electrically coupled in series with the second inverter, and a capacitance of each second capacitor is different than a capacitance of each first capacitor. Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art of record, Tahara et al does not disclose the following limitation: the main SCPA comprises a plurality of first cells electrically coupled in parallel and each first cell comprising a first inverter, a first capacitor electrically coupled in series with the first inverter, the peak SCPA comprises a plurality of second cells electrically coupled in parallel and each second cell comprising a second inverter, a second capacitor electrically coupled in series with the second inverter, and a capacitance of each second capacitor is different than a capacitance of each first capacitor.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
2025/0,260,368 teaches a Doherty amplifier circuit with the output transformer and an antenna.
2025/0,096,735 teaches a Doherty amplifier circuit with the shunt inductor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Henry Choe whose telephone number is (571)272-1760. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 5AM-11:00PM.
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 at 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.
/HENRY CHOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
#2982
Prosecution Insights