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 § 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 2, 11 and 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.
Regarding claim 2, which discloses “controlling a transformer connection to maintain an impedance presented to a receive signal regardless of the one power level to which the communication signal is amplified for transmission”. However, it is not clear from the specification how the claimed subject matter can be achieved. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, see claim 2 above.
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, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bakalski et al. (20150311922), hereafter called BAKALSKI.
BAKALSKI (Figs 1, 3a and 5) discloses a switching circuit for RF amplifier comprising: selectively (switch 102) amplifying (see Fig. 1, wherein terminals (RF1 and RF2) are respectively connected to amplifiers (116 and 124)) the communication signal (RF_IN) to one of a plurality of power levels (RF1 and RF2) for transmission; and controlling (controller/processor 106) a variable capacitance (354) to maintain a frequency response while amplifying to the one power level.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 13, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NGAI et al. (20180226924), hereafter called NGAI.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 13, NGAI (Fig. 4) discloses an amplifier circuit comprising: selectively (120) amplifying (124) the communication signal (112) to one of a plurality of power levels (1361 and 136n) for transmission; and controlling (controller/processor 134) a variable capacitance (117) to maintain a frequency response while amplifying to the one power level, see paras. [0026], [0028] and [0031].
Regarding claims 3 and 15, see Fig. 4, wherein the amplifying comprises amplifying the communication signal with a first amplifier path and a second amplifier path, and wherein the method further comprises combining (combined and generated an output signal (132)) an output of the first amplifier path with an output of the second amplifier path.
Regarding claims 5-8 and 17-20, wherein claimed subject matters are inherent in NGAI, see paras. [0026], [0028] and [0031].
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) 4, 9, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAKALSKI/NGAI, hereafter called PRIOR ART.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 16, PROR ART discloses claimed invention except for a phase shifter claimed. However, providing a phase shifter for desired/specific intended use of the invention is considered a matter of design engineering and well-known in the art for shifting the phase the RF signal to a desired degree(s), see Krett et al. (8,963,636), claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, NGAI discloses claimed invention except the desired dB claimed. However, it is inherently obvious combined power level of the paths is higher than each individual path by itself, wherein desire dB is based on design engineering, such as components value selected, which is considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ripley et al. (20170063412), another related prior art, with selected inputs. However, it does not disclose selectively amplify for each path.
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
