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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 23 and 29 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.
Regarding claim 14, McCleary, Kusunoki and Sutardja alone or in combination fail to disclose, teach or suggest the limitations that read, “wherein: the differential power amplifier includes first and second cascodes configured to amplify the at least two useful signals of different frequencies to be transmitted by the respective elementary antenna; and the second-order harmonic injection circuit includes: a first push-push differential amplifier comprising third and fourth cascodes connected as output to an output of the first cascode of the differential power amplifier; and a second push-push differential amplifier comprising fifth and sixth cascodes connected as output to an output of the second cascode of the differential power amplifier; wherein the first push-push differential amplifier and the second push-push differential amplifier are configured to receive the at least two useful signals of different frequencies to be transmitted by the respective elementary antenna”, in combination with all the limitations of the claims from which claim 15 depends and within the context of the claims.
Regarding claims 23 and 29, McCleary, Kusunoki and Sutardja alone or in combination fail to disclose, teach or suggest the limitations that read, “receiving, by third and fourth cascodes of the first push-push differential amplifier, an output of the first cascode of the differential power amplifier; and receiving, by fifth and sixth cascodes of the second push-push differential amplifier, an output of the second cascode of the differential power amplifier”, in combination with all the limitations of the respective claims from which claims 23 and 29 depend and within the context of the claims.
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.
Claims 10, 15-17, 19, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20050134505 A1 (McCleary et al., hereinafter McCleary).
Regarding claim 10, McCleary discloses a phased array antenna (Fig. 1, “100”) comprising:
a plurality of elementary antennas (“array elements 108”); and
an amplifier circuit for each elementary antenna (“104”, “106”), the amplifier circuit including:
a power amplifier (Fig. 1, “106” and par. [0022]) configured to amplify at least two useful signals (S1…SM) of different frequencies to be transmitted by the elementary antenna (par. [0025], “…at three different frequencies”); and
a third-order intermodulation product control circuit configured to control a phase (Fig. 1, “104”, “110”; Fig. 4 and pars. [0026]-[0027] and [0037]) of third-order intermodulation products generated by the power amplifier amplifying the at least two useful signals (par. [0026], third order IM), so as to control an orientation of a radiation of the third-order intermodulation products transmitted by the phased array antenna during transmission of the at least two useful signals (Fig. 1 and par. [0027], “IM interference reduction may be obtained by steering and/or defocusing IM beam 210 which is being radiated in the direction of a desired beam” where the signals are transmitted through array elements 108).
Regarding claim 16, McCleary discloses a method of operating a phased array antenna (Fig. 1, “100”) including a plurality of elementary antennas (“array elements 108”), the method comprising:
amplifying, by a power amplifier of an amplifier circuit ((Fig. 1, “106” and par. [0022]), at least two useful signals (S1…SM) of different frequencies (par. [0025], “…at three different frequencies”) to be transmitted by each elementary antenna (“array elements 108”; and
controlling, by a third-order intermodulation product control circuit of the amplifier circuit (Fig. 1, “104”, “110”), a phase of third-order intermodulation products generated by the amplifying of the at least two useful signals (Fig. 1, “104”, “110”; Fig. 4 and pars. [0026]-[0027] and [0037]), so as to control an orientation of a radiation of the third-order intermodulation products transmitted by the phased array antenna during transmission of the at least two useful signals (Fig. 1 and par. [0027], “IM interference reduction may be obtained by steering and/or defocusing IM beam 210 which is being radiated in the direction of a desired beam” where the signals are transmitted through array elements 108).
Regarding claim 24, McCleary discloses a method of operating a phased array antenna (Fig. 1, “100”) including a plurality of elementary antennas (“array elements 108”), the method comprising:
amplifying, by a power amplifier of an amplifier circuit ((Fig. 1, “106” and par. [0022]), at least two useful signals (S1…SM) of different frequencies (par. [0025], “…at three different frequencies”) to be transmitted by each elementary antenna (“array elements 108”);
controlling, by a third-order intermodulation product control circuit of the amplifier circuit (Fig. 1, “104”, “110”), a phase of third-order intermodulation products generated by the amplifying of the at least two useful signals (Fig. 1, “104”, “110”; Fig. 4 and pars. [0026]-[0027] and [0037]), the controlling comprising directing radiation of the third-order intermodulation products according to an angle of a plurality of degrees in relation to an initial direction according to which the third-order intermodulation products would be transmitted without phase control of the third-order intermodulation products (Fig. 1 and par. [0027], “IM interference reduction may be obtained by steering and/or defocusing IM beam 210 which is being radiated in the direction of a desired beam” where the signals are transmitted through array elements 108).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, McCleary discloses all the limitations of claims 10 and 16, respectively. McCleary discloses wherein the phase of the third- order intermodulation products is controlled so as to deviate the radiation of the intermodulation products according to an angle of a plurality of degrees in relation to an initial direction according to which the third-order intermodulation products would be transmitted without phase control of the third-order intermodulation products (par. [0039], where the main lobes are optimized while cancelling or reducing side lobes).
Regarding claims 19 and 26, McCleary discloses all the limitations of claims 18 and 25, respectively. McCleary further comprising transmitting the at least two useful signals by each elementary antenna (Fig. 1, “S1…SM” and “108”).
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.
Claims 11, 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCleary in view of US 20080058001 A1 (Shigeo Kusunoki et al., hereinafter Kusunoki).
Regarding claims 11, 18 and 25, McCleary discloses all the limitations of claims 10, 17 and 24, respectively. McCleary transmit the combined signal to the respective elementary antenna (par. [0025], “…at three different frequencies”).
McCleary does not specifically disclose wherein the third-order intermodulation product control circuit comprises:
a second-order harmonic injection circuit connected to an output of the power amplifier, and configured to: receive as input the at least two useful signals; generate a second-order harmonic signal from the at least two useful signals; combine the at least two useful signals amplified with the second-order harmonic signal into a combined signal; and a phase controller configured to control a phase of the second-order harmonic signal generated by the second-order harmonic injection circuit.
In related art concerning power amplifier system and mobile phone terminal using same, Kusunoki discloses wherein the third-order intermodulation product control circuit comprises:
a second-order harmonic injection circuit connected to an output of the power amplifier (Fig. 1, “10”), and configured to:
receive as input the at least two useful signals (using McCleary two inputs ); generate a second-order harmonic signal from the at least two useful signals (output signal of “10”); combine the at least two useful signals amplified with the second-order harmonic signal into a combined signal (“30”); and a phase controller configured to control a phase of the second-order harmonic signal generated by the second-order harmonic injection circuit (Fig. 1, “20”; par. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kusunoki’s teachings wherein the third-order intermodulation product control circuit comprises:
a second-order harmonic injection circuit connected to an output of the power amplifier, and configured to: receive as input the at least two useful signals; generate a second-order harmonic signal from the at least two useful signals; combine the at least two useful signals amplified with the second-order harmonic signal into a combined signal; and a phase controller configured to control a phase of the second-order harmonic signal generated by the second-order harmonic injection circuit with the multibeam phase array antenna disclosed by McCleary because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using second-order harmonics are well-recognized in signal processing to detect and quantify nonlinearity; therefore, making it easier to resolve noise/distortion issues.
Claims 12-13, 20-21, 22, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCleary in view of Kusunoki, and further in view of US 20140203874 A1 (Sutardja et al., hereinafter Sutardja).
Regarding claims 12, 20 and 27, McCleary and Kusunoki disclose all the limitations of claims 11, 19 and 26, respectively.
Although suggested, McCleary and Kusunoki do not specifically disclose wherein the power amplifier is a differential power amplifier, and the second-order harmonic injection circuit includes first and second push-push differential amplifiers.
In related art concerning power amplifiers with push-pull transistors for harmonic cancellation, Sutardja discloses a differential power amplifier (Fig. 4A and par. [0039], “400”), and the second-order harmonic injection circuit includes first and second push-push differential amplifiers (Fig. 4A and pars. [0036], [0039]-[0040], “400a” and “400b”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kobayashi’s teachings of a differential power amplifier with the multibeam phase array antenna disclosed by McCleary because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the type of amplifier constitutes a designer’s choice consideration, where a differential amplifier would allow the array antenna systems to achieve higher packing density and more compact layouts.
Regarding claims 13 and 21, McCleary, Kusunoki and Sutardja disclose all the limitations of claims 12 and 20, respectively. Sutardja further discloses wherein the second-order harmonic injection circuit includes first and second push-push differential amplifiers (Fig. 4A and pars. [0036], [0039]-[0040], “400a” and “400b”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Kobayashi’s teachings wherein the second-order harmonic injection circuit includes first and second push-push differential amplifiers with the multibeam phase array antenna disclosed by McCleary because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the type of amplifier constitutes a designer’s choice consideration, where a differential amplifier generally comprise push-pull amplifiers, where the outputs of the push-pull amplifiers are in-phase in one device and out-of-phase in the other; therefore, they cancel each other.
Regarding claims 22 and 28, McCleary discloses all the limitations of claims 20 and 27, respectively. McCleary discloses the at least two useful signals of different frequencies to be transmitted by the respective elementary antenna (Fig. 1, the desired signals are transmitted by antenna elements “108”).
Sutardja further discloses wherein: amplifying, by first and second cascodes of the differential power amplifier (par. [0004], “common source, common-gate configuration); and receiving, by first and second push-push differential amplifiers of the second-order harmonic injection circuit (par. [0017], “Gates of the first and the second transistors are plus input configured to receive an AC signal having a fundamental frequency, and gates of the third and the fourth transistors are minus input configured to receive the AC signal having the fundamental frequency.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Sutardja’s teachings about amplifying, by first and second cascodes of the differential power amplifier; and receiving, by first and second push-push differential amplifiers of the second-order harmonic injection circuit with the multibeam phase array antenna disclosed by McCleary because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the type of amplifier constitutes a designer’s choice consideration, where a differential amplifier generally comprise push-pull amplifiers, where the outputs of the push-pull amplifiers are in-phase in one device and out-of-phase in the other; therefore, they cancel each other.
Note: the examiner agrees with the Written Opinion of the PCT provided by applicant on 09/24/2024. The Written Opining citations are quoted in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220255512 A1 (Kevin Wesley Kobayashi, hereinafter Kobayashi) relates to a reconfigurable amplifier.
US 20190348955 A1 (Christopher Day, hereinafter Day).
US 20230170859 A1 relates to radio-frequency power amplifier with intermodulation distortion mitigation.
US 20210218376 A1 relates to apparatus and method for amplifying power in transmission device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelica Perez whose telephone number is 571-272-7885. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either the PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the 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). Information regarding Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system can be found at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2600's customer service number is 703-306-0377.
/Angelica M. Perez/
Primary Examiner AU 2649
Prosecution Insights