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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to an apparatus for compensating for distortion, classified in H03F1/3241.
II. Claims 18-21, drawn to a predictor, classified in G01R27/2611.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the subcombination requires a leaky integrator configured to integrate an indication of a voltage across the integrator and a divider for dividing the output of the integrator by an estimate of an inductance of the inductor. The subcombination has separate utility such as a predictor on its own without being incorporated in an apparatus for compensating for distortion in an output drive signal of a switched-mode amplifier.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions I and II are also directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect since invention I requires an apparatus for compensating for distortion in an output drive signal of a switched-mode amplifier which arises from non-linearity of an inductor in an output path for the drive signal, the apparatus comprising a corrector configured to determine a correction term based on the predicted distortion that can be additively applied to an input signal to at least partly compensate for the distortion in the drive signal, while invention II requires a leaky integrator configured to integrate an indication of a voltage across the integrator and a divider for dividing the output of the integrator by an estimate of an inductance of the inductor. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Invention I requires an apparatus for compensating for distortion in an output drive signal of a switched-mode amplifier which arises from non-linearity of an inductor in an output path for the drive signal, the apparatus comprising a corrector configured to determine a correction term based on the predicted distortion that can be additively applied to an input signal to at least partly compensate for the distortion in the drive signal, while invention II requires a leaky integrator configured to integrate an indication of a voltage across the integrator and a divider for dividing the output of the integrator by an estimate of an inductance of the inductor. Inventions I and II would require different search strategies, the searching of different terms, and a different determination of allowability which would be a serious search and examination burden.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Brian Prewitt on 08/27/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of invention I, claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 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.
Claim 2 recites “an input voltage for the inductor”. However, “an input voltage for the inductor” were already introduced in claim 1. This makes it unclear if this is an additional measurement or the same from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “a predicted current in the inductor based on the indication of an input voltage for the inductor”. However, “a predicted current” and “an input voltage for the inductor” were already introduced in claim 1. This makes it unclear if these are additional measurements or the same from claim 1. Claims 4-11 are dependent on claim 3, and therefore also rejected, and some have similar issues. For example, claims 4-5 recite “an input voltage for the inductor” which was already introduced in claims 1 and 3, while claim 6 recites “the input voltage for the inductor”. This further confuses the scope of the claims, and it is requested that the applicant correct for antecedent basis issues throughout these claims.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the current predictor is configured to determine the predicted current based on a integral of a voltage difference between the input voltage for the inductor the output voltage for the inductor and an estimate of an inductance of the inductor”. It is not clear if the applicant meant to claim “wherein the current predictor is configured to determine the predicted current based on a integral of a voltage difference between the input voltage for the inductor and the output voltage for the inductor, and an estimate of an inductance of the inductor” but it will be construed as such for the purposes of examination.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Turner (US 2020/0177990).
Regarding claim 1, Turner teaches the following:
an apparatus for compensating for distortion in an output drive signal of a switched-mode amplifier (120, figure 8) which arises from non-linearity of an inductor (Zs, figure 8) in an output path for the drive signal, the apparatus comprising:
a distortion predictor (“estimate of current”, figure 8) configured to predict the distortion in the output drive signal; where the distortion predictor comprises a current predictor (“estimate of current”, figure 8) configured to determine a predicted current in the inductor based on at least an indication of an input voltage for the inductor (“Optional voltage feedback”, figure 8), and a model for modelling the distortion based on the predicted current (the model would be what is estimating the current);
a corrector (Feedback transfer function and Feedback response correction, figure 8) configured to determine a correction term based on the predicted distortion that can be additively applied to an input signal to at least partly compensate for the distortion in the drive signal (paragraphs [0053], [0057]-[0058], [0060]).
Regarding claim 2, Turner as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the indication of an input voltage for the inductor (“Optional voltage feedback”, figure 8) is based on a received input signal for the switched-mode amplifier system.
Regarding claim 12, Turner as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the current predictor (“estimate of current”, figure 8) is further configured to determine a predicted current in the inductor based on a feedback signal of a measured average of inductor current.
Regarding claim 15, Turner teaches the following:
an apparatus for compensating for distortion in an output drive signal of a switched-mode amplifier (120, figure 8) which arises from non-linearity of an inductor (Zs, figure 8) in an output path for the drive signal, the apparatus comprising:
a distortion predictor (“estimate of current”, figure 8) configured to predict the distortion in the output drive signal; and
a corrector (Feedback transfer function and Feedback response correction, figure 8) configured to determine a correction term based on the predicted distortion that can be additively applied to an input signal (105, figure 8) to at least partly compensate for the distortion in the drive signal (paragraphs [0053], [0057]-[0058], [0060]).
Regarding claim 16, Turner as referred in claim 15 teaches the following:
wherein the distortion predictor (“estimate of current”, figure 8) comprises a current predictor configured to determine a predicted current in the inductor.
Regarding claim 17, Turner as referred in claim 15 teaches the following:
wherein the current predictor (“estimate of current”, figure 8) is configured as a closed-loop current predictor which receives at least a feedback signal of an output voltage of the inductor (“Optional voltage feedback”, figure 8).
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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 2020/0177990) in view of Elyasi et al. (US 2025/0247057, hereby referred as Elyasi).
Regarding claim 13, Turner as referred in claim 1 teaches the apparatus with the exception for the following:
wherein the corrector is configured to determine the correction term as a polynomial correction term and wherein an order of the polynomial correction term is selectively configurable.
Elyasi suggests the teachings of wherein the corrector is configured to determine the correction term as a polynomial correction term and wherein an order of the polynomial correction term is selectively configurable (paragraphs [0056] and [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the corrector of Turner to be configured to determine the correction term as a polynomial correction term and wherein an order of the polynomial correction term is selectively configurable as suggested by the teachings of Elyasi which can be used to adjust the correction term as desired to allow for a certain pre-distortion (paragraphs [0056] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 14, Turner as referred in claim 1 teaches the apparatus with the exception for the following:
wherein the model is configured to be dynamically adapted.
Elyasi suggests the teachings of wherein the model is configured to be dynamically adapted (paragraphs [0025]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the model of Turner be configured to be dynamically adapted as suggested by the teachings of Elyasi which can be used to improve the improved signal quality of a feedback signal to the corrector which can enable improved pre-distortion (e.g., cancellation of the PA non-linearity) and PA performance, such as reduced error vector magnitude (EVM) and/or improved PA efficiencies (e.g., operating temperature, power consumption, and/or gain compression) (paragraph [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 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, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Khoury et al. (US 2009/0289709) and Elyasi et al. (US 2025/0247057) teach pre-distortion correction for an inductor using predicative feedback and correction and may be used to reject the current claims instead of Turner. Sheen (US 2011/0215867) teaches pre-distortion correction for an inductor. Giesbers et al. (ADAPTIVE DIGITAL PREDISTORTION LINEARISATION FOR RF POWER AMPLIFIERS) teaches pre-distortion correction using polynomial and could be used to reject claim 13 instead of Elyasi.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights