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 § 112
2. Claims 2, 19 and 20 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, the range of “two (2) or less” is indefinite. What range is this? Regarding claims 19 and 20. Adjusting either the first or second programmable resistor to “between a first minimum resistance and a maximum resistance” is indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims needs to be clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claims 1, 3, 4, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu et al US 10727790 B2 in view of Lehtola US 2023/0097146 A1.
5. Consider claim 1. Balteanu et al teaches an apparatus (fig. 6) comprising: a driver amplifier (600) circuit, comprising: a driver amplifier (442) including a differential output; a balun (443) including a primary winding and a secondary winding, wherein the differential output of the DA is coupled to the primary winding of the balun, and wherein the secondary winding (467) includes a first portion (top) and a second portion (bottom), the second portion being coupled to ground (through M1); a first programmable resistor (reads on variable attenuator 657 which adjust resistance) coupled between the first portion (top) of the secondary winding and an output of the DA circuit (ports #3, #4); Although Balteanu teaches using plural paths for matching plural loads to the output of the DA circuit he fails to teach a control circuit (667) configured to adjust a resistance of the first programmable resistor to set a voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR) at a load coupled to the output of the DA circuit. However, from the same field of endeavor, Lehtola (fig 3 and 0036) teaches such. It would have been obvious, before the effective date to substitute the variable resistor and control thereof for that that taught by Balteanu et al in order to stabilize the output more efficiently. Method claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 1, since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
6. Regarding claim 3. Lehtola teaches (0038) wherein the control circuit is configured to adjust the resistance of the first programmable resistor based on information (reads on temperature) regarding an operating frequency band of the DA circuit.
7. Regarding claim 4. Lehtola teaches (fig 3) a second programmable resistor (348) coupled between the first portion and the second portion of the secondary winding of the balun.
8. Regarding claims 14 and 17. Balteanu et al teaches (fig 3) wherein the load comprises a power amplifier (344).
9. Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu et al US 10727790 B2 in view of Lehtola US 2023/0097146 A1 further in view of Brown Jr US 2020/0021263 A1.
10. Regarding claim 2. The combination of Balteanu and Lehtola fail wherein the control circuit is configured to adjust a resistance of the first programmable resistor to set the VSWR to within a range of two (2) or less. However, Brown Jr teaches from the same field of endeavor such (0047). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use adjust the resistance as taught by Brown Jr in Lehtola to maximize the load match.
11. Regarding claim 15. Brown Jr teaches (0047) wherein the load has an impedance of substantially 50 Ohms.
12. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balteanu et al US 10727790 B2 in view of Lehtola US 2023/0097146 A1 further in view of Lo CN 117769807-A (see google translation CN117769807A - Multi-mode multi-port driver for transceiver interface - Google Patents.
13. Regarding claim 18. The combination of Balteanu and Lehtola fail to teach wherein adjusting the resistances of the first and second programmable resistors comprises adjusting the resistances based on an operating frequency band of the DA circuit. However, Lo from the same field of endeavor teach such (see fig 3, resistor 332 and cascaded resistors 331, 333, 336 and 338 and corresponding description of the “actual transmission frequency”). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to adjust the resistance based on the frequency band as taught by Lo in order to improve the quality of communication when switching cellular bands.
14. Regarding claims 19 and 20. Lo’s adjustable resistor 322 and cascade resistors can inherently be switched in and adjusted to both minimum and maximum resistance.
Claim Objections
15. Regarding claim 5. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the control circuit is configured to adjust a resistance of the second programmable resistor to set the VSWR. Claims 6-10 are objected to since they depend upon claim 5 (either directly or ultimately).
16. Regarding 11. The prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious wherein the first programmable resistor comprises a set of switching devices coupled in parallel between the first portion of the secondary winding of the balun and the output of the DA circuit, wherein the control circuit is coupled to the set of switching devices. Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as allowable since they depend upon claim 11.
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al 9391583 B2 teaches (fig 1 below) a line driver circuit includes: a transmission line driving amplifier having a first transmission terminal and a second transmission terminal; a first signal node; a second signal node; a first adjustable resistor positioned between the first transmission terminal and the first signal node; a second adjustable resistor positioned between the second transmission terminal and the second signal node; a first voltage difference generating circuit coupled with two terminals of the first adjustable resistor to generate a first voltage difference value; a second voltage difference generating circuit coupled with two terminals of the second adjustable resistor to generate a second voltage difference value; sample-and-hold circuits for generating sampled signals according to the first voltage difference value and the second voltage difference value; a comparing circuit for comparing the sampled signals; and an adjusting circuit for adjusting resistance of the first and/or second adjustable resistors according to the comparing result.
PNG
media_image1.png
254
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights