DETAILED ACTION
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (2006/0022740).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 3 of Kim discloses circuitry comprising:
first and second input transistors [MN33-34]
a distortion compensation circuit that comprises includes a third transistor having a gate terminal coupled to a gate terminal of the first input transistor [MN31]
a fourth transistor having a gate terminal coupled to a gate terminal of the second input transistor [MN32]
a tail current source coupled to a first source-drain terminal of the third transistor and to a first source-drain terminal of the fourth transistor [Ibias]
a signal attenuation circuit coupled between the gate terminal of the first input transistor and the gate terminal of the third transistor [resistor connected to Vbias]
Regarding claim 2, Figure 3 of Kim discloses
wherein the gate terminal of the first input transistor is coupled to a first input terminal of the circuitry [Vin+]
the first input transistor further comprises a first source-drain terminal coupled to a power supply line and a second source-drain terminal coupled to a first output terminal of the circuitry [MN31]
Regarding claim 3, Figure 3 of Kim discloses
wherein the gate terminal of the second input transistor is coupled to a second input terminal of the circuitry [Vin-]
the second input transistor further comprises a first source-drain terminal coupled to the power supply line and a second source-drain terminal coupled to a second output terminal of the circuitry [MN32]
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (2006/0022740).
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal attenuation circuit is configured to provide an adjustable attenuation factor for tuning a gain compression voltage range of the distortion compensation circuit.
However, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Kim by using an adjustable resistor as a matter of simple design-choice, since it was well-known in the art to use an adjustable resistor to adjust gain attenuation.
Regarding claim 8, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the tail current source is configured to pass a tail current that is less than a fifth of an output current flowing through the first and second input transistors.
However, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Kim by using a tail current less than a fifth of the output current as a matter of simple design-choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 9-15 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.
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tomi S Skibinski whose telephone number is (571)270-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 8am - 6pm.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/TOMI SKIBINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights