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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 2, 5-11, 17 and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salem et al. (20180097486), hereafter called SALEM.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, SALEM (2B) discloses an amplifier circuit, comprising a main amplifier (PA3 and PA4) circuit comprising a plurality of first switched- capacitor, SC, house-of-cards, HoC, amplifier cells (see power amplifier cells PA3 and PA4 and para. [0049], see also Fig. 1C and para. [0046]) coupled in parallel between an input (Vin) and an output of the main amplifier circuit (the right hand side interconnection node of all main capacitors CM); at least one peak amplifier comprising power amplifiers (PA1 and PA2) circuit comprising a plurality of second SC HoC amplifier cells (see power amplifier cells PA1 and PA2 and para. [0049], see also Fig. 1C and para. [0046]) coupled in parallel between an input (Vin) and an output of the peak amplifier circuit (the right hand side interconnection node of all main capacitors CM); wherein the output of the main amplifier circuit and the output of the peak amplifier circuit are coupled to a common load (RL).
Regarding claim 2, see D1, Fig. 11A and paragraph [0069], the HoC cells are reconfigurable by keeping some switches in a fixed state, thereby generating different discrete output voltage levels.
Regarding claim 5, see Fig. 2B, when switching between phase 2 and phase 3, the main amplifier comprises power amplifiers PA3 and PA4 and the peaking amplifier comprises power amplifier cells PA1 and PA2.
Regarding claim 6, see Fig. 2B in combination paragraph [0049] describing Fig. 2B and stating: "In general, any arbitrary number of slices greater than 2 can be used. 16 slices were implemented in the experimental chip.", wherein a slice refers to one power amplifier, i.e. PA1, PA2, PA3 or PA4 in Fig. 2B.
Regarding claims 7 and 8: see Figs. 7A to 8B.
Regarding claim 9, see Fig. 2B, main capacitors CM and peak capacitors Cp.
Regarding claim 10, see Fig. 2B and paragraph [0049], the presence of a control circuit although not explicitly mentioned is required to reconfigure the topologies and therefore considered to be an implicit feature.
Regarding claim 11, see Fig. 15B and paragraph [0087].
Regarding claim 17, see Fig. 1C, antenna 20.
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) 3, 4 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SALEM in view of Voravit et al. (see applicant IDS), hereafter called VORAVIT.
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 12, SALEM discloses claimed invention except the subject matters claimed. VORAVIT (Figs. 5, 6 and 13) discloses claimed subject matters not disclosed in SALEM. SALEM and VORAVIT are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely Doherty amplifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure the circuit of SALEM as VORAVIT has disclosed such configuration in the same context.
Regarding claims 13-16, which disclose straightforward implementation details that the person skilled in the art would select in accordance with the design requirements without applying inventive skills.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (20200266768); Walling et al. (11,258,410); Yoo et al. (8,547,177), all discloses switched capacitor amplifier. However, they are not Doherty amplifier, wherein each main amplifier and peak amplifier, each comprises amplifier cells in parallel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh V. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1767. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHANH V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights