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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 5, 9, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mishra et al. (US 2018/0329838).
Regarding Claim 1, Mishra teaches a baseband processor (BBP), comprising: a bus interface configured to: couple to a frontend module (FEM) through a bus (Figure 3, Section 0050, the BBP is coupled to the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) via the modem (304) and RFFE bus (308)); and communicate to the FEM using a first protocol; and a control circuit configured to interoperate with a driver that communicates bidirectionally with the FEM by tunneling through the first protocol (Figure 3, RFFE tunneling different protocols (Section 0040) such as VGI tunneling (Sections 0061, 0062), the modem (304) communicates bidirectionally with the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) through tunneling thus said modem comprises circuitry that enables said bidirectional communication by tunneling, which reads on control circuitry and driver circuitry), wherein tunneling comprises encapsulating data and commands that are outside a scope of the first protocol within packets formed according to the first protocol and the driver is configured to instruct the control circuit to encapsulate the data and commands for transmission through the bus interface (tunneling (Sections 0040, 0061, 0062) comprises enclosing or encapsulating data and commands according to a protocol).
Regarding Claim 16, Mishra teaches a mobile device comprising: a frontend module (FEM) (Figure 3, FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322)); a communication bus coupled to the FEM (Figure 3, Section 0050, the BBP is coupled to the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) via the modem (304) and RFFE bus (308)); and a baseband processor (BBP) coupled to the communication bus (Figure 3, Section 0050, the BBP is coupled to the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) via the modem (304) and RFFE bus (308)) and configured to communicate bidirectionally with the FEM using tunneled encapsulated read and write commands (Figure 3, RFFE tunneling different protocols (Section 0040) such as VGI tunneling (Sections 0061, 0062), BBP is coupled to the modem (304) which communicates bidirectionally with the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) through tunneling); wherein tunneled commands comprise encapsulated commands that are outside a scope of a first protocol within packets formed according to the first protocol (tunneling (Sections 0040, 0061, 0062) comprises enclosing or encapsulating data and commands according to a protocol).
Regarding Claim 4, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Mishra further teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to interoperate with the driver at a local modem processor (Figure 3, modem (304), typical modems comprise processors).
Regarding Claim 5, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Mishra further teaches wherein the control circuit is further configured to receive encapsulated instructions for the FEM (tunneling (Sections 0040, 0061, 0062) enables transmission and reception of encapsulated instructions).
Regarding Claim 9, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Mishra further teaches wherein the control circuit is further configured to send information about the BBP to the driver (Figure 3, Section 0050, BBP communicates with the modem (304) which comprises the control and driver circuitry).
Regarding Claim 17, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 16. Mishra further teaches a driver hosted in a modem processor associated with the BBP (Figure 3, Section 0050, modem comprises control circuitry and driver circuitry).
Regarding Claim 19, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 16. Mishra further teaches a power management integrated circuit (PMIC) and wherein the BBP is configured to control the PMIC based on information from the FEM (Figure 3, Section 0050, BBP communicates with the FEM via the RFFE bus, BBP controls the FEM which comprises the power management module based on communications with said FEM).
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) 2, 6, 12 – 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US 2018/0329838) in view of Ngo et al. (US 2020/0153470).
Regarding Claim 12, Mishra teaches a method of controlling a frontend module (FEM) in a mobile device, the method comprising: receiving information from the FEM using a command outside a scope of a first protocol, wherein the command is encapsulated within a signal formatted according to the first protocol an encapsulated command (Figure 3, RFFE tunneling different protocols (Section 0040) such as VGI tunneling (Sections 0061, 0062), the modem (304) communicates bidirectionally with the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) through tunneling, this renders a scenario wherein the modem receives information from said FEM via tunneling which comprises enclosing or encapsulating data and commands according to a protocol); passing the information to a driver (Sections 0061, 0062), the modem (304) communicates bidirectionally with the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) through tunneling thus said modem comprises circuitry that enables said bidirectional communication by tunneling, which reads on control circuitry and driver circuitry); and based on the information, sending a command to the FEM using a second encapsulated command outside the scope of the first protocol, wherein the second command is encapsulated within a second signal formatted according to the first protocol (Figure 3, RFFE tunneling different protocols (Section 0040) such as VGI tunneling (Sections 0061, 0062), the modem (304) communicates bidirectionally with the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) through tunneling, this renders a scenario wherein the modem receives information from said FEM via tunneling which comprises enclosing or encapsulating data and commands according to a protocol and then sending a command or information to said FEM based on the received information via said tunneling).
Mishra does not teach reading information from a register and passing the information from the register.
Ngo, which also teaches use of RFFE buses, teaches reading information from a register and passing the information from the register (Section 0031, information can be read from the register and pass along).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra with the above features of Ngo for the purpose of enabling flexible RFFE bus deployment as taught by Ngo.
Regarding Claim 2, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Mishra further teaches receiving information from the FEM by tunneling (Figure 3, RFFE tunneling different protocols (Section 0040) such as VGI tunneling (Sections 0061, 0062), the modem (304) communicates bidirectionally with the FEM (312, 314, 316, 318, 320, 322) through tunneling, this renders a scenario wherein the modem receives information from said FEM via tunneling which comprises enclosing or encapsulating data and commands according to a protocol).
Mishra does not teach read information from a register in the FEM.
Ngo, which also teaches use of RFFE buses, teaches reading information from a register in the FEM (Section 0031, information can be read from the register and pass along).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra with the above features of Ngo for the purpose of enabling flexible RFFE bus deployment as taught by Ngo.
Regarding Claim 6, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Mishra does not teach wherein the control circuit is configured to interoperate with the driver at a bridge.
Ngo, which also teaches use of RFFE buses, teaches entities operating at bridge (Section 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra with the above features of Ngo for the purpose of enabling flexible RFFE bus deployment as taught by Ngo.
Regarding Claim 13, Mishra in view of Ngo teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 12. Mishra further teaches wherein the command adjusts an operating parameter of an element within the FEM (Figure 3, Section 0050, send commands via RFFE bus to control FEM).
Regarding Claim 14, Mishra in view of Ngo teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 12. Mishra further teaches comprising hosting the driver in a modem processor (Figure 3, Section 0050, modem comprises control circuitry and driver circuitry).
Regarding Claim 15, Mishra in view of Ngo teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 12. Mishra further teaches hosting the driver in an application processor (Figure 3, Section 0050, modem comprises control circuitry and driver circuitry, typical modems comprise processors).
Regarding Claim 20, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 16. Mishra further teaches wherein the BBP is configured to provide information to a driver (Figure 3, Section 0050, BBP communicates with the modem which comprises the control circuitry and driver circuitry) and receive encapsulated commands from the driver (Figure 3, tunneling (Sections 0040, 0061, 0062) comprises enclosing or encapsulating data and commands according to a protocol)
Mishra does not teach receive the encapsulated read and write commands from the driver.
Ngo, which also teaches use of RFFE buses, teaches read and write commands (Section 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra with the above features of Ngo for the purpose of enabling flexible RFFE bus deployment as taught by Ngo.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US 2018/0329838) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2020/0192455)
Regarding Claim 3, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Mishra does not teach wherein the control circuit is configured to interoperate with the driver by communicating with a remote application processor.
Kumar, which also teaches use of RFFEs, teaches communication with a remote application processor (Figure 10, Section 0062, communication with an application processor via the modem and RFIC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra with the above features of Kumar for the purpose of reducing power consumption of communication interfaces as taught by Kumar.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US 2018/0329838) in view of Ngo et al. (US 2020/0153470), as applied to Claim 2 set forth above, and further in view of Mishra et al. (US 2017/0116141), hereafter Mishra141
Regarding Claim 7, Mishra in view of Ngo teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 2. Mishra in view of Ngo does not teach wherein the control circuit is further configured to read detector information in the register.
Mishra141, which also teaches use of RFFEs, teaches reading detector information in the register (Section 0084, status information is read from the slave devices, said status information would be stored in some kind of memory or register in said slave devices, status information reads on detector information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra in view of Ngo with the above features of Mishra141 for the purpose of providing RFFE messaging with decreased latency for partial write operations as taught by Mishra141.
Regarding Claim 8, Mishra in view of Ngo teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 2. Mishra in view of Ngo does not teach wherein the control circuit is further configured to read operating condition information in the register.
Mishra141, which also teaches use of RFFEs, teaches reading operating condition information in the register (Section 0084, status information is read from the slave devices, said status information would be stored in some kind of memory or register in said slave devices, status information reads on detector information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra in view of Ngo with the above features of Mishra141 for the purpose of providing RFFE messaging with decreased latency for partial write operations as taught by Mishra141.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US 2018/0329838) in view of Ebadi Shabrivar et al. (US 2022/0264468)
Regarding Claim 10, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 9. Mishra does not teach wherein the control circuit is configured to send key performance indicator (KPI) information to the driver.
Ebadi Shabrivar, which also teaches mobile communications, teaches sending KPI information to entities (Section 0122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra with the above features of Ebadi Shabrivar for the purpose of providing adaptive power control thus providing power efficiency as taught by Ebadi Shabrivar.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al. (US 2018/0329838) in view of Mishra et al. (US 2017/0116141)
Regarding Claim 11, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 9. Mishra further teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to send information to the driver (Figure 3, Section 0050, modem (304) which comprises the control and driver circuitry thus rendering a scenario wherein information is passed from the control circuitry to the drive circuitry).
Mishra does not teach send operating condition information.
Mishra141, which also teaches use of RFFEs, teaches send operating condition information (Section 0084, status information is read from the slave devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra with the above features of Mishra141 for the purpose of providing RFFE messaging with decreased latency for partial write operations as taught by Mishra141.
Regarding Claim 18, Mishra teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 16. Mishra further teaches the BBP is configured to receive from the FEM via an encapsulated command (Figure 3, tunneling (Sections 0040, 0061, 0062) comprises enclosing or encapsulating data and commands according to a protocol).
Mishra does not teach wherein the FEM comprises at least one detector associated with an element of the FEM, and a register, wherein information from the at least one detector is stored in the register and the BBP is configured to read the register using an encapsulated read command.
Mishra141, which also teaches use of RFFEs, teaches wherein the FEM comprises at least one detector associated with an element of the FEM, and a register (Section 0084, status information is read from the slave devices, said status information would be stored in some kind of memory or register in said slave devices, status information reads on detector information), wherein information from the at least one detector is stored in the register (Section 0084, status information is read from the slave devices, said status information would be stored in some kind of memory or register in said slave devices, status information reads on detector information) and reading the register (Section 0084, status information is read from the slave devices, said status information would be stored in some kind of memory or register in said slave devices, status information reads on detector information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mishra with the above features of Mishra141 for the purpose of providing RFFE messaging with decreased latency for partial write operations as taught by Mishra141.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND S DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00-2:30, 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/RAYMOND S DEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Raymond S. Dean
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights