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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 13 & 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.
In Claim 13, the recitations of “a first capacitor that is connected in series to a first of the first pair of flat plates of the splitter” is unclear because “a first” is not clearly defined. Is the applicant meant by “a first flat plate” of the first pair of flat plates? Further clarification is needed. And similarly, “a second inductor that is connected in series to a second of the first pair of flat plates of the splitter” is rejected in the same manner as discussed above.
In Claim 13, the recitations “a first inductor that is shunt connected to the first flat plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is needed.
In Claim 13, the recitations “a second capacitor that is shunt connected to the second flat plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is needed.
Claim 14 is rejected in the same manner as discussed above.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al. (US 20180205348 A1, of record, hereinafter Barton) in view of Embar et al. (US 20150155838 A1, of record, hereinafter Embar).
Regarding claim 1:
Barton discloses in Fig. 3:
a power amplifier circuit comprising:
a first power splitter (Fig. 3, Power divider) that is configured to split an input signal into a first input signal and a second input signal;
and a control amplifier (Control PA) that is configured to amplify the second input signal and to output
Barton discloses RF-input Doherty amplifiers (the current topology of choice for the commercial base station industry) etc., with advantages including reduced baseband signal processing and the ability to work with standard linearization methods but does not a carrier amplifier and a peak amplifier.
Embar discloses a Doherty amplifier comprising carrier amplifier and peaking amplifier including its input terminals connected to power splitter and its output terminals connected to a combine node 28.
Barton and Embar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely power amplifier.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the reference, taken as a whole, to have modified the circuit of Barton to have included carrier amplifier and peaking amplifier, as taught by Embar. Such a modification would have imparted the advantageous benefit of improving high efficiency, a desired linearity and performance improved power-added efficiency and linearity of the amplifier, see paragraphs [0013], [0017], as taught by Embar to Barton reference, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Accordingly, as an obvious consequence above, the combination further discloses a Doherty amplifier circuit that comprises a carrier amplifier and a peak amplifier (see Fig. 4, carrier 20 and peaking 22 amplifiers), and that is configured to amplify the first input signal and to output an output signal to an output terminal; and the control amplifier (Fig. 3, control PA) that is configured to amplify the second input signal and to output, to the Doherty amplifier circuit, a control signal that controls a load impedance of the Doherty amplifier circuit.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination (Barton and Embar) further discloses wherein the Doherty amplifier circuit further comprises a second power splitter (power splitter which connected to the input terminals of amplifiers Pmains) that is configured to split the first input signal into a first signal and a second signal, wherein the carrier amplifier operates in class A or class AB (see paragraph 0002), and is configured to amplify the first signal and to output a first amplified signal, wherein the peak amplifier operates in class C (see paragraph 0002) and is configured to amplify the second signal and to output a second amplified signal, wherein the Doherty amplifier circuit further comprises a combiner that is configured to combine the first amplified signal and the second amplified signal, and to output the output signal to the output terminal, and wherein the control signal is inputted to the combiner.
Regarding claims 3 & 4:
The combination (Barton and Embar) further discloses wherein the control amplifier operates in class C / AB (see paragraph 0020, Class C mode) and it is noted that the applicant used class C / AB interchangeably, thus class AB which considered as intended use.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination (Barton and Embar) further discloses wherein the combiner comprises a parallel plate coupler having a pair of flat plates that are parallel to each other (as can be seen from Fig. 3, an output coupler which appears analogous art to the element 134 of the application) .
Regarding claim 6:
The combination (Barton and Embar) further discloses wherein the combiner comprises a λ/4 line coupler having a wiring with a line length that is one-fourth of a wavelength of a frequency of the input signal (see paragraph 0026, 90 degrees of coupler).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination (Barton and Embar) further discloses wherein the combiner comprises a branch line coupler (see Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 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 8-9 & 12 are allowable since the closest prior art does not disclose about further comprising: a first impedance matching circuit electrically connected in series between the Doherty amplifier circuit and the control amplifier, wherein the first impedance matching circuit comprises a transmission line transformer.
Claims 10-11 are allowable since the closest prior art does not disclose about
further comprising: a second impedance matching circuit electrically connected in series between the Doherty amplifier circuit and the output terminal, wherein the second impedance matching circuit comprises a transmission line transformer.
Claims 13 & 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110140775 A1: Hong discloses a Doherty power amplifier which includes a power splitter for splitting an input power, and outputting the split powers to a carrier amplification units and peaking amplification units, wherein an output combiner connected to output of carrier amplifiers and peaking amplifiers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3941. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights