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) filed on January 03, 2025 has been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US 20140077874 A1, , hereinafter “Ahmed”), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20220329231 A1, hereinafter “Yamamoto”), and further in view of Clark et al. (US 20220070997 A1, hereinafter “Clark”)
Regarding Claim 1, Ahmed teaches a transceiver comprising: a phase amplitude controller (PAC) comprising: “an adjustable power splitter 101 or radio frequency power splitter is coupled to or being utilized with or driving an amplifier, specifically a Doherty amplifier or Doherty power amplifier 103.” [0017]
a power splitter configured to provide two signals, “The adjustable power splitter 101 includes a power divider 105 with an input 107 and a first and second divider output 109, 111. The power divider 105 operates to divide or split a signal at the input 107 into two … signals, which are identical or very nearly identical signals with in some embodiments equal power.” [0018]
a first variable phase shifter coupled to the power splitter and configured to phase shift a first signal of the two signals, “Further included in the adjustable radio frequency power splitter 101, as shown in FIG. 1, is a first adjustable phase shifter 113 ” [0019], and “series coupled to the first divider output 109 and configured for providing a first power output 117” [0019]
a second variable phase shifter coupled to the power splitter and configured to phase shift a second signal of the two signals, “Further included in the adjustable radio frequency power splitter 101 is a second adjustable phase shifter 119” [0019], and “series coupled to the second divider output 111 and configured for providing a second power output 123” [0019]
However, Ahmed does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first variable phase shifter is configured to provide a selected phase shift between zero and one hundred eighty degrees;
In the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches wherein the first variable phase shifter is configured to provide a selected phase shift between zero and one hundred eighty degrees, “When the frequency of an input signal is included in a first frequency band and the phase shift amount of the input signal is larger than zero degrees and equal to or smaller than 180 degrees, the first phase shift circuit 11 amplifies each of the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal in accordance with the phase shift amount of the input signal.” [0047], and “0<θ≤180 indicates that the phase shift amount θ of the input signal is larger than zero degrees and equal to or smaller than 180 degrees.” [0092]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahmed’s transceiver by incorporating Yamamoto’s phase-shift control because both references are directed to RF phase-adjustment circuitry employing variable phase shifters. Yamamoto expressly teaches operation over a selected phase-shift range greater than zero degrees and up to one hundred eighty degrees. Incorporating Yamamoto’s phase-shift control into Ahmed’s digitally controlled phase shifter architecture would have predictably provided precise phase selection over the claimed range while preserving Ahmed’s phase-adjustment functionality, yielding a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combination of Ahmed and Yamamoto does not explicitly teach:
a power combiner coupled to the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter and configured to combine the first signal and the second signal such that phase and amplitude are adjusted based on phase shifts provided by the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter;
In the same field of endeavor, Clark teaches a power combiner coupled to the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter and configured to combine the first signal and the second signal such that phase and amplitude are adjusted based on phase shifts provided by the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter, “When signal direction is reversed and output arms of circuit 150 of FIGS. 1A-1C are excited, circuit 150 becomes a combiner, and any combination of magnitude/phase applied to the two output ports can be split into weighted even mode and odd mode signals. Even/odd analysis can be done separately and then superimposed to recover the combined signal” [0031], and “In the even mode excitation of FIG. 1A, the bisected half circuit portion 100 of the power divider circuit 150 may be modeled as an open circuit (O.C.) and since the resistive shunt 108 has a length that is a multiple of the wavelength (
PNG
media_image1.png
38
25
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) at the fundamental frequency (f0), it will appear as an open circuit where it meets the output arm 104 a and no “real” current will flow on it” [0032], and “In the odd mode excitation of FIG. 1B, the bisected half portion 100 of the power divider circuit may be modeled as a short circuit (e.g., as if coupled to ground) and since the resistive shunt 108 has a length that is a multiple of the full wavelength (
PNG
media_image1.png
38
25
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) at the fundamental frequency (f0), it will appear as a short circuit where it meets the first output arm 104 a, whereas the quarter-wave impedance transformer section 106 a will still appear as an open circuit at f0. All the current will be directed through the lossy transmission line of the resistive shunt 108 so that it will take the full current load. In the case that the total length of resistive shunt 108 is sufficient to achieve a distributed resistance of twice the characteristic impedance (2Z0), the energy will be completely transferred to heat.” [0033]. [See Clark, Figs. 1A-1C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combined of Ahmed and Yamamoto system to incorporate Clark’s power combiner because Clark teaches a combiner operating according to even-mode and odd-mode signal analysis in which the desired combined signal is recovered while odd-mode energy is directed to the isolation resistor. Incorporating Clark’s combiner into the Ahmed and Yamamoto architecture would have predictably provided a known RF combining topology that improves port isolation while recovering the desired combined output signal, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 7, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 7 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Ahmed further teaches a configuration employing only adjustable phase shifters without attenuators, wherein the PAC does not include an attenuator, “In alternate embodiments, an adjustable power splitter may include only adjustable attenuators 1013-1015 or only adjustable phase shifters 1016-1018, but not both.” [0055], and “the first and second adjustable phase shifters and the first and second adjustable attenuators are digitally controlled with each having multiple states, e.g., 8 or more or less states.” [0027], and “the controller 125 can be provided an encoded value (e.g., a binary value) or two or more encoded values, wherein each of the encoded values uniquely specify a state for each attenuator 115, 121 and phase shifter 113, 119.” [0044]
Regarding Claim 8, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 8 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Ahmed further teaches adjustable phase shifters and adjustable attenuators series coupled between the divider outputs and the power outputs, the PAC further comprises a first adjustable attenuator serially positioned between the power splitter and the first variable phase shifter, “The adjustable power splitter 1010 also includes N adjustable phase shifters 1016-1018 and N adjustable attenuators 1013-1015, which are series coupled between the N divider outputs 1020-1022 and N power outputs 1030-1032” [0055], and “It will be appreciated that the adjustable phase shifter and adjustable attenuator can be series coupled to each other in any order, i.e., attenuator followed by phase shifter as shown or vice versa” [0019]. [See also Ahmed, FIG. 10]
Regarding Claim 9, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 9 as recited above in the rejection of claim 8. In addition, Ahmed further teaches a plurality of adjustable attenuators series coupled between the divider outputs and the power outputs, covering both the first and second signal paths, the PAC further comprises a second adjustable attenuator serially positioned between the power splitter and the second variable phase shifter, “The adjustable power splitter 1010 also includes N adjustable phase shifters 1016-1018 and N adjustable attenuators 1013-1015, which are series coupled between the N divider outputs 1020-1022 and N power outputs 1030-1032” [0055], and “It will be appreciated that the adjustable phase shifter and adjustable attenuator can be series coupled to each other in any order, i.e., attenuator followed by phase shifter as shown or vice versa” [0019]. [See also Ahmed, FIG. 10]
Regarding Claim 10, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 10 as recited above in the rejection of claim 8. In addition, Ahmed further teaches the first adjustable attenuator has no more than three bits of adjustment available, “if all phase shifters 113, 119 and attenuators 115, 121 are 8 state devices, a 3 bit encoded value for each could be used to uniquely specify a particular state” [0044], and further “FIG. 3 illustrates an input 301 (analogous to input to adjustable attenuator 115 or 121 in FIG. 1) to a first variable attenuator 303, which provides either 0 db or 2 db of attenuation, where 2 dB is provided when b2 304 is high or equal to 1.” [0031], and “Further shown in FIG. 3 is a table 309 of input signals b0, b1” [0032]. [See also Ahmed, Fig. 3]
Regarding Claim 11, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 11 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Clark further teaches the power splitter comprises a Wilkinson power splitter, “in the case of a Wilkinson power divider, a discrete lumped resistor is placed between the power outputs to match the power outputs as well as to provide isolation between them.” [0004], and further “Even-Odd mode analysis can be performed on a Wilkinson power divider” [0005]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the power splitter of the Ahmed and Yamamoto transceiver using the Wilkinson power divider architecture expressly taught by Clark because both Ahmed and Clark are directed to RF power splitting circuit for dividing RF signals into multiple signal paths. Clark expressly teaches that a Wilkinson power divider provides impedance matching and isolation between the output ports by placing a resistor between the power outputs while maintaining proper power division. Incorporating Clark’s Wilkinson power divider into the Ahmed and Yamamoto transceiver would have predictably provided an RF power splitter having matched outputs and improved isolation between the divided signal paths while preserving the phase-control functionality of the combined system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 12 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Clark further teaches that the same circuit operates as a combiner when signal direction is reversed, the power combiner comprises a Wilkinson power combiner, “When signal direction is reversed and output arms of circuit 150 of FIGS. 1A-1C are excited, circuit 150 becomes a combiner, and any combination of magnitude/phase applied to the two output ports can be split into weighted even mode and odd mode signals. Even/odd analysis can be done separately and then superimposed to recover the combined signal” [0031], and “in the case of a Wilkinson power divider, a discrete lumped resistor is placed between the power outputs to match the power outputs as well as to provide isolation between them.” [0004], and “Even-Odd mode analysis can be performed on a Wilkinson power divider” [0005]. [See also Clark, Figs. 1A-1C]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the power combiner of the existing Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark combination using the Wilkinson combiner operation expressly taught by Clark because Clark teaches that the same Wilkinson circuit functions as a power combiner when signal direction is reversed while maintaining impedance matching, output isolation, and even/odd-mode operation. Implementing the power combiner in accordance with Clark’s Wilkinson power combiner operation would have predictably provided the claimed RF signal combining with matched ports and isolation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US 20140077874 A1, , hereinafter “Ahmed”), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20220329231 A1, hereinafter “Yamamoto”), further in view of Clark et al. (US 20220070997 A1, hereinafter “Clark”), and further in view of Yu (US 9379436 B1, hereinafter “Yu”)
Regarding Claim 2, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 2 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Ahmed teaches that encoded bits specify the operating sate of a digitally controlled phase shifter, “the controller 125 can be provided an encoded value (e.g., a binary value) or two or more encoded values, wherein each of the encoded values uniquely specify a state for each attenuator 115, 121 and phase shifter 113, 119. For example, if all phase shifters 113, 119 and attenuators 115, 121 are 8 state devices, a 3 bit encoded value for each could be used to uniquely specify a particular state.” [0044], and further “The number of phase shifting elements will be determined by the required resolution (step size) and the phase range needed to be covered (number of steps)” [0036]
However, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark do not explicitly teach the first variable phase shifter comprises a six-bit phase shifter.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises a six-bit phase shifter, wherein bits of the six-bit phase shifter indicate the selected phase shift, “The phase shifter 122 may be a digital phase shifter selected from one of for example, but not limited to, a four-bit phase shifter, a five-bit phase shifter, a six-bit phase shifter, a seven-bit phase shifter, an eight-bit phase shifter, or some other type of phase shifter.” [Col. 4, lines 62-67], “Each of the set of bit states 124 may correspond to a phase shift, or particular phase angle.” [Col. 4, lines 55-57], and “The phase that is applied may be determined by the bit state of a set of bits 126.” [Col. 4, lines 49-50]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark combination by implement Ahmed’s digitally-controlled phase shifter as a six-bit digital phase shifter taught by Yu because both references are directed to digitally-controlled RF phase shifters for antenna systems in which digital bit values determine the applied phase shift. Ahmed expressly teaches that the number of phase-shifting elements depends upon the desired phase resolution and phase range, while Yu expressly identifies a six-bit phase shifter as a conventional implementation and teaches that the bit states correspond to respective phase shifts. Incorporating the know six-bit implementation of Yu into Ahmed’s phase-shifter architecture would have predictably provided additional selectable phase states while preserving Ahmed’s digital phase-control operation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 3, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 3 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Ahmed teaches that encoded bits specify the operating sate of a digitally controlled phase shifter, “the controller 125 can be provided an encoded value (e.g., a binary value) or two or more encoded values, wherein each of the encoded values uniquely specify a state for each attenuator 115, 121 and phase shifter 113, 119. For example, if all phase shifters 113, 119 and attenuators 115, 121 are 8 state devices, a 3 bit encoded value for each could be used to uniquely specify a particular state.” [0044], and further “The number of phase shifting elements will be determined by the required resolution (step size) and the phase range needed to be covered (number of steps)” [0036]
However, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark do not explicitly teach the first variable phase shifter comprises an eight-bit phase shifter.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises an eight-bit phase shifter, wherein bits of the eight-bit phase shifter indicate the selected phase shift, “The phase shifter 122 may be a digital phase shifter selected from one of for example, but not limited to, a four-bit phase shifter, a five-bit phase shifter, a six-bit phase shifter, a seven-bit phase shifter, an eight-bit phase shifter, or some other type of phase shifter.” [Col. 4, lines 62-67], “Each of the set of bit states 124 may correspond to a phase shift, or particular phase angle.” [Col. 4, lines 55-57], and “The phase that is applied may be determined by the bit state of a set of bits 126.” [Col. 4, lines 49-50]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark combination by implement Ahmed’s digitally-controlled phase shifter as an eight-bit digital phase shifter taught by Yu because both references are directed to digitally-controlled RF phase shifters for antenna systems in which digital bit values determine the applied phase shift. Ahmed expressly teaches that the number of phase-shifting elements depends upon the desired phase resolution and phase range, while Yu expressly identifies an eight-bit phase shifter as a conventional implementation and teaches that the bit states correspond to respective phase shifts. Incorporating the know eight-bit implementation of Yu into Ahmed’s phase-shifter architecture would have predictably provided additional selectable phase states while preserving Ahmed’s digital phase-control operation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US 20140077874 A1, , hereinafter “Ahmed”), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20220329231 A1, hereinafter “Yamamoto”), further in view of Clark et al. (US 20220070997 A1, hereinafter “Clark”), and further in view of Penn (US 6806792 B2, hereinafter “Penn”)
Regarding Claim 4, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 4 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Ahmed teaches a first adjustable phase shifter with digitally-controlled switchable signal paths, “the switches shown are provided with a pair of single throw switches a, b for each phase shifting element 401, 411, 421. Each of the phase shifting elements can be designed, arranged and configured to provide some predetermined amount of phase shift.” [0036], and “a first signal path coupled between the input through a switch 403 or alternatively with switch 405 closed through phase shifting circuit 407 to an output 410” [0037]
However, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark do not explicitly teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises a switched line circuit.
In the same field of endeavor, Penn teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises a switched line circuit, “For large phase shifts, a broadband switched line/reflected bit 102 is used.” [Col. 4, lines 15-16], and “Switching between a /4 line and an equal length Lange coupler shorted to ground provides a broadband 180° phase difference.” [Col. 4, lines 22-24]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark combination by implement Ahmed’s first adjustable phase shifter using the switched line circuit topology taught by Penn because both references are directed to digitally-controlled RF phase shifters employing selectable signal paths to generate desired phase shifts. Ahmed teaches switchable signal paths selecting between phase-shifting elements, while Penn expressly teaches implementing phase-shifter bits using a switched line circuit topology. Incorporating the switched line topology of Penn into Ahmed’s adjustable phase shifter would have predictably provided the desired selectable phase shifting using a conventional RF phase-shifter implementation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 6 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Ahmed teaches a first adjustable phase shifter with digitally-controlled switchable signal paths, “the switches shown are provided with a pair of single throw switches a, b for each phase shifting element 401, 411, 421. Each of the phase shifting elements can be designed, arranged and configured to provide some predetermined amount of phase shift.” [0036], and “a first signal path coupled between the input through a switch 403 or alternatively with switch 405 closed through phase shifting circuit 407 to an output 410” [0037]
However, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark do not explicitly teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises a switched high pass low pass circuit.
In the same field of endeavor, Penn teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises a switched high pass low pass circuit, “For small phase shifts, a high pass/ low pass bit topology 106 is used” [Col. 4, lines 64-65], and “High pass/low pass networks work well in MMICs since they tend to be small in size and are broad band.” [Col. 4, lines 65-67], and “The topology chosen, which includes a FET switch T7 and PHEMT switch T8 connected in parallel, absorbs the parasitic capacitances of the Switches by incorporating them as elements in the high pass/low pass architecture.” [Col. 5, lines 1-5]. [See also Penn, FIG. 3]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark combination by implementing Ahmed’s first adjustable phase shifter using the switched high pass/low pass circuit topology taught by Penn because Ahmed teaches a digitally controlled adjustable phase shifter with selectable signal paths, while Penn expressly teaches implementing phase-shifter bits using a switched high pass/low pass topology. Incorporating the switched high pass/low pass topology of Penn into Ahmed’s adjustable phase shifter with the existing Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark combination would have predictably provided the claimed phase-shifter implementation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US 20140077874 A1, , hereinafter “Ahmed”), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20220329231 A1, hereinafter “Yamamoto”), further in view of Clark et al. (US 20220070997 A1, hereinafter “Clark”), and further in view of Richardson (US 2585842 A, hereinafter “Richardson”)
Regarding Claim 5, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 5 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Ahmed teaches a first adjustable phase shifter with digitally-controlled switchable signal paths, “the switches shown are provided with a pair of single throw switches a, b for each phase shifting element 401, 411, 421. Each of the phase shifting elements can be designed, arranged and configured to provide some predetermined amount of phase shift.” [0036], and “a first signal path coupled between the input through a switch 403 or alternatively with switch 405 closed through phase shifting circuit 407 to an output 410” [0037]
However, Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark do not explicitly teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises a bridge T-type circuit.
In the same field of endeavor, Richardson teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises a bridge T-type circuit, “This. invention relates to wave transmission networks and more particularly to variable phase shifters.” [Col. 1, lines 1-3], and “The circuit is of the bridged-T type” [Col. 1, lines 27-28], and “Fig. 10 shows an unbalanced bridged-T network which is the equivalent of the prototype lattice of Fig. 1 when the network N is a T-type low-pass filter” [Col. 4, lines 46-48]. [See Richardson, Figs. 8-11]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ahmed, Yamamoto, and Clark combination by implement Ahmed’s first adjustable phase shifter using the bridged-T phase-shifter topology taught by Richardson because both references are directed to phase-shifting circuitry employing variable phase shifters. Ahmed teaches a digitally controlled adjustable phase shifter, while Richardson expressly teaches a bridge-T variable phase shifter. Incorporating the bridged-T phase-shifter topology of Richardson into Ahmed’s adjustable phase shifter would have predictably provided the desired selectable phase shifting using a conventional phase-shifter implementation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rodger et al. (US 20110032158 A1, hereinafter “Rodger”), in view of Ahmed et al. (US 20140077874 A1, , hereinafter “Ahmed”), and further in view of Clark et al. (US 20220070997 A1, hereinafter “Clark”)
Regarding Claim 13, Rodger teaches an antenna panel configured to be coupled to a tower to provide wireless communication service to user equipment, “A typical known Cellular Telephone Base Station System comprises several elements, including one or more panel antennas, each panel antenna comprising an array of radiating elements mounted at an elevation above the ground” [0002], and “Panel Antenna 10 located on a communications tower.” [0026], and “Typically, the communications hub receives digital signals from the BSE, comprising information for RF transmission by the Panel Antenna” [0031]
the antenna panel comprising:
a housing, “the enclosure 12 comprises a rear panel 30, a lower side wall 32, an angled side wall 34, an upper side wall 36, and a flange 38.” [0024]
a plurality of antenna elements on a front face of the housing, “The RF modules may include a plurality of radio frequency radiating elements” [0035], and “Each RF module 124 may include a plurality of RF elements.” [0040]
a corresponding plurality of transceivers for respective ones of the plurality of antenna elements, “each micro radio is coupled to one of the plurality of RF radiating modules” [0010], and “Each RF module 24 is coupled to a corresponding pair of micro radios 20.” [0030]
However, Rodger does not explicitly teach:
wherein each of the corresponding plurality of transceivers comprises:
a phase amplitude controller (PAC) comprising: a power splitter configured to provide two signals;
a first variable phase shifter coupled to the power splitter and configured to phase shift a first signal of the two signals by a selected phase shift;
a second variable phase shifter coupled to the power splitter and configured to phase shift a second signal of the two signals;
In the same field of endeavor, Ahmed teaches a phase amplitude controller (PAC) comprising: a power splitter configured to provide two signals, “The adjustable power splitter 101 includes a power divider 105 with an input 107 and a first and second divider output 109, 111. The power divider 105 operates to divide or split a signal at the input 107 into two (or more in other embodiments—not specifically shown) signals, which are identical or very nearly identical signals with in some embodiments equal power.” [0018]
a first variable phase shifter coupled to the power splitter and configured to phase shift a first signal of the two signals by a selected phase shift, “a first adjustable phase shifter 113 … series coupled to the first divider output 109” [0019], and “the first and second adjustable phase shifters and the first and second adjustable attenuators are digitally controlled with each having multiple states, e.g., 8 or more or less states.” [0027], and “using a first adjustable phase shifter and first adjustable attenuator that are each digitally controlled with each having multiple states” [0049]
a second variable phase shifter coupled to the power splitter and configured to phase shift a second signal of the two signals, “a second adjustable phase shifter 119 … coupled to the second divider output 111” [0019]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rodger’s panel antenna by incorporating Ahmed’s adjustable power splitter architecture within each of Rodger’s micro radios because both references are directed to RF signal processing circuitry for use in based-station antenna systems. Rodger discloses that each micro radio is individually coupled to a corresponding antenna element to drive that element’s RF signal. Ahmed discloses an adjustable power splitter with two independently-controlled phase-shifted output paths used to achieve independent phase and amplitude adjustment of the RF signals supplied to the respective antenna elements. Incorporating Ahmed’s phase-controlled architecture into Rodger’s per-element micro radio would have predictably provided precise, independent phase and amplitude adjustment for each antenna element with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combination of Rodger and Ahmed does not explicitly teach:
a power combiner coupled to the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter and configured to combine even modes of the first signal and the second signal while discarding odd modes of the first signal and the second signal such that phase and amplitude are adjusted based on phase shifts provided by the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter.
In the same field of endeavor, Clark teaches a power combiner coupled to the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter and configured to combine even modes of the first signal and the second signal while discarding odd modes of the first signal and the second signal such that phase and amplitude are adjusted based on phase shifts provided by the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter, “When signal direction is reversed and output arms of circuit 150 of FIGS. 1A-1C are excited, circuit 150 becomes a combiner, and any combination of magnitude/phase applied to the two output ports can be split into weighted even mode and odd mode signals. Even/odd analysis can be done separately and then superimposed to recover the combined signal” [0031], and “In the even mode excitation of FIG. 1A, the bisected half circuit portion 100 of the power divider circuit 150 may be modeled as an open circuit (O.C.) and since the resistive shunt 108 has a length that is a multiple of the wavelength (
PNG
media_image1.png
38
25
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) at the fundamental frequency (f0), it will appear as an open circuit where it meets the output arm 104 a and no “real” current will flow on it” [0032], and “n the odd mode excitation of FIG. 1B, the bisected half portion 100 of the power divider circuit may be modeled as a short circuit (e.g., as if coupled to ground) and since the resistive shunt 108 has a length that is a multiple of the full wavelength (
PNG
media_image1.png
38
25
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) at the fundamental frequency (f0), it will appear as a short circuit where it meets the first output arm 104 a, whereas the quarter-wave impedance transformer section 106 a will still appear as an open circuit at f0. All the current will be directed through the lossy transmission line of the resistive shunt 108 so that it will take the full current load. In the case that the total length of resistive shunt 108 is sufficient to achieve a distributed resistance of twice the characteristic impedance (2Z0), the energy will be completely transferred to heat.” [0033]. [See Clark, Figs. 1A-1C]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combined Rodger and Ahmed system to incorporate Clark’s power combiner within each per-element transceiver because Clark teaches a combiner operating according to even-mode and odd-mode signal analysis in which the desired combined signal is recovered through even/odd superposition while odd-mode energy is directed through a lossy resistive shunt and dissipated as heat. Ahmed’s architecture already produces two independently phase-shifted RF signals on parallel paths within each transceiver; the natural next step for a person of ordinary skill seeking to produce a single phase-and-amplitude-controlled RF output from those two paths – for delivery to each respective antenna element of Rodger’s antenna panel – is to recombine them at a power combiner. Clark’s even/odd-mode combiner is a well-known, standard RF combining topology expressly applicable to both divider and combiner configurations, and incorporating it into the Ahmed architecture within each of Rodger’s per-element transceivers would have predictably provided improved port isolation, suppression of unwanted odd-mode energy, and recovery of the desired combined output signal with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 16, Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 16 as recited above in the rejection of claim 13. In addition, Ahmed further teaches the PAC further comprises a first adjustable attenuator serially positioned between the power splitter and the first variable phase shifter, “The adjustable power splitter 1010 also includes N adjustable phase shifters 1016-1018 and N adjustable attenuators 1013-1015, which are series coupled between the N divider outputs 1020-1022 and N power outputs 1030-1032.” [0055], and “It will be appreciated that the adjustable phase shifters and adjustable attenuators can be series coupled to each other in any order (i.e., phase shifter followed by attenuator as shown or vice versa)” [0055]. [See also Ahmed, FIG. 10]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination such that the PAC further comprises a fist adjustable attenuator serially positioned between the power splitter and the first variable phase shifter as expressly taught by Ahmed because Ahmed teaches that adjustable phase shifters and adjustable attenuators are series coupled between the divider outputs and the power outputs and may be arranged in either serial order. Incorporating Ahmed’s serial arrangement into the existing Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination would have predictably provided adjustable attenuation together with adjustable phase shifting within each transceiver path while preserving the operation of the PAC, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 17, Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 17 as recited above in the rejection of claim 13. Ahmed further teaches the PAC further comprises a second adjustable attenuator serially positioned between the power splitter and the second variable phase shifter, “The adjustable power splitter 1010 also includes N adjustable phase shifters 1016-1018 and N adjustable attenuators 1013-1015, which are series coupled between the N divider outputs 1020-1022 and N power outputs 1030-1032.” [0055], and “It will be appreciated that the adjustable phase shifters and adjustable attenuators can be series coupled to each other in any order (i.e., phase shifter followed by attenuator as shown or vice versa)” [0055]. [See also Ahmed, FIG. 10]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination such that the PAC further comprises a second adjustable attenuator serially positioned between the power splitter and the second variable phase shifter as expressly taught by Ahmed because Ahmed teaches that N adjustable phase shifters and N adjustable attenuators are series coupled between the N divider outputs and the N power outputs and may be arranged in either serial order. Incorporating Ahmed’s serial arrangement into the existing Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination would have predictably provided corresponding adjustable attenuation and adjustable phase shifting of each signal path while preserving the operation of the PAC, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 18, Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 18 as recited above in the rejection of claim 13. In addition, Ahmed further teaches a lookup table configured to provide phase-state and attenuator-state settings for the adjustable phase shifters and adjustable attenuators of the PAC, further comprising a look-up table configured to provide settings for elements of the PAC, “In another alternate embodiment, the controller 125 may receive an address or offset, and may look up the phase state and/or attenuator state information in a lookup table (not illustrated) based on the received address or offset.” [0044]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination such that the PAC further comprises a look-up table configured to provided settings for elements of the PAC as expressly taught by Ahmed because Ahmed teaches that the controller receives an address or offset and retrieves corresponding phase state and attenuator state information from a lookup table to configure the adjustable phase shifters and adjustable attenuators. Incorporating Ahmed’s lookup table into the existing Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination would have predictably enabled the controller to configure the PAC elements using stored phase-state and attenuator-state information while preserving the operation of the PAC, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rodger et al. (US 20110032158 A1, hereinafter “Rodger”), in view of Ahmed et al. (US 20140077874 A1, , hereinafter “Ahmed”), further in view of Clark et al. (US 20220070997 A1, hereinafter “Clark”), and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20220329231 A1, hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Regarding Claim 14, Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 14 as recited above in the rejection of claim 13. Ahmed teaches independent phase and amplitude adjustment within each PAC, “the first and second adjustable phase shifters and the first and second adjustable attenuators are digitally controlled with each having multiple states, e.g., 8 or more or less states.” [0027], and “using a first adjustable phase shifter and first adjustable attenuator that are each digitally controlled with each having multiple states.” [0049]
Although Ahmed teaches independent phase and amplitude adjustment within each PAC and Rodger teaches an antenna panel having corresponding transceivers for respective antenna elements, the Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination does not explicitly teach that the respective phase and amplitudes of signals passing through the PACs may be adjusted for beam forming by the antenna panel.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches respective phase and amplitudes of signals passing through the PACs may be adjusted for beam forming by the antenna panel, “An antenna device used in a radar device generally includes a phased array antenna and a phase shifter. When the direction of a beam radiated from the phased array antenna is changed, the phase shifter switches the phase of a high frequency signal provided to the phased array antenna.” [0003], and “The phased array antenna 5 includes a plurality of antenna elements. The antenna element radiates a radio wave related to the phase-shifted signal output from the phase shifter 1 into space.” [0030], and “the antenna device includes phase shifters 1 as many as the plurality of antenna elements included in the phased array antenna 5.” [0031]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination such that independent adjustable phase and amplitude control provided by Ahmed’s PACs is used for beam forming by the antenna panel taught by Yamamoto because Rodger teaches an antenna panel having corresponding transceivers for respective antenna elements, Ahmed teaches independent phase and amplitude adjustment within each transceiver path, Clark teaches the PAC combiner architecture already incorporate in claim 13, and Yamamoto teaches that changing the phase of signals supplied to the respective antenna elements changes the direction of the beam radiated by the phased-array antenna. Incorporating Yamamoto’s beam-forming technique into the Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination would have predictably enabled beam forming by the antenna panel, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rodger et al. (US 20110032158 A1, hereinafter “Rodger”), in view of Ahmed et al. (US 20140077874 A1, , hereinafter “Ahmed”), further in view of Clark et al. (US 20220070997 A1, hereinafter “Clark”), and further in view of Yu (US 9379436 B1, hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding Claim 15, Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 15 as recited above in the rejection of claim 13. Ahmed teaches that encoded bits specify the operating states of a digitally controlled phase shifter, “the controller 125 can be provided an encoded value (e.g., a binary value) or two or more encoded values, wherein each of the encoded values uniquely specify a state for each attenuator 115, 121 and phase shifter 113, 119. For example, if all phase shifters 113, 119 and attenuators 115, 121 are 8 state devices, a 3 bit encoded value for each could be used to uniquely specify a particular state.” [0044], and “The number of phase shifting elements will be determined by the required resolution (step size) and the phase range needed to be covered (number of steps)” [0036]
However, the Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination does not explicitly teach the first variable phase shifter comprises a six-bit phase shifter, wherein bits of the six-bit phase shifter indicate the selected phase shift.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches the first variable phase shifter comprises a six-bit phase shifter, wherein bits of the six-bit phase shifter indicate the selected phase shift, “The phase shifter 122 may be a digital phase shifter selected from one of for example, but not limited to, a four-bit phase shifter, a five-bit phase shifter, a six-bit phase shifter, a seven-bit phase shifter, an eight-bit phase shifter, or some other type of phase shifter.” [Col. 4, lines 62-67], “Each of the set of bit states 124 may correspond to a phase shift, or particular phase angle.” [Col. 4, lines 55-57], and “The phase that is applied may be determined by the bit state of a set of bits 126.” [Col. 4, lines 49-50]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Ahmed’s digitally-controlled phase shifter within the Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination as the six-bit digital phase shifter taught by Yu because both Ahmed and Yu are directed to digitally controlled RF phase shifters in which digital bit values determine the applied phase shift. Ahmed expressly teaches that the number of phase-shifting elements depends upon the desired phase resolution and phase range, while Yu expressly identifies a six-bit phase shifter as a conventional implementation and teaches that the bit states correspond to respective phase shifts. Incorporating the six-bit digital phase shifter taught by Yu into Ahmed’s phase-shifter architecture within the existing Rodger, Ahmed, and Clark combination would have predictably provided additional selectable phase states while preserving Ahmed’s digital phase- control operation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US 20140077874 A1, , hereinafter “Ahmed”), and in view of Clark et al. (US 20220070997 A1, hereinafter “Clark”)
Regarding Claim 19, Ahmed teaches a method of adjusting phase and amplitude of a signal, “splitting 901 an input signal into a plurality, N, of signals at a plurality, N, of divider outputs” [0048], and “adjusting 903 a phase shift and attenuation of the first signal to provide a first resultant signal at a first power output; which can include, e.g., using a first adjustable phase shifter and first adjustable attenuator that are each digitally controlled with each having multiple states” [0049], and “adjusting 905 a phase shift and attenuation of the second signal to provide a second resultant signal at a second power output; which can include, e.g., using a second adjustable phase shifter and second adjustable attenuator that are each digitally controlled with each having multiple states.” [0050] comprising:
splitting a signal using a power splitter into a first signal and a second signal, “splitting 901 an input signal into a plurality, N, of signals at a plurality, N, of divider outputs” [0048]
using a first variable phase shifter to adjust a first phase of the first signal, “adjusting 903 a phase shift and attenuation of the first signal to provide a first resultant signal at a first power output; which can include, e.g., using a first adjustable phase shifter and first adjustable attenuator that are each digitally controlled with each having multiple states” [0049]
using a second variable phase shifter to adjust a second phase of the second signal, “adjusting 905 a phase shift and attenuation of the second signal to provide a second resultant signal at a second power output; which can include, e.g., using a second adjustable phase shifter and second adjustable attenuator that are each digitally controlled with each having multiple states.” [0050]
However, Ahmed does not explicitly teach combining the first signal and the second signal with a power combiner such that even modes of the first signal and the second signal are constructively summed while discarding odd modes of the first signal and the second signal such that phase and amplitude are adjusted based on phase shifts provided by the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter.
In the same field of endeavor, Clark teaches combining the first signal and the second signal with a power combiner such that even modes of the first signal and the second signal are constructively summed while discarding odd modes of the first signal and the second signal such that phase and amplitude are adjusted based on phase shifts provided by the first variable phase shifter and the second variable phase shifter, “When signal direction is reversed and output arms of circuit 150 of FIGS. 1A-1C are excited, circuit 150 becomes a combiner, and any combination of magnitude/phase applied to the two output ports can be split into weighted even mode and odd mode signals. Even/odd analysis can be done separately and then superimposed to recover the combined signal” [0031], and “n the even mode excitation of FIG. 1A, the bisected half circuit portion 100 of the power divider circuit 150 may be modeled as an open circuit (O.C.) and since the resistive shunt 108 has a length that is a multiple of the wavelength (
PNG
media_image1.png
38
25
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) at the fundamental frequency (f0), it will appear as an open circuit where it meets the output arm 104 a and no “real” current will flow on it” [0032], and “In the odd mode excitation of FIG. 1B, the bisected half portion 100 of the power divider circuit may be modeled as a short circuit (e.g., as if coupled to ground) and since the resistive shunt 108 has a length that is a multiple of the full wavelength (
PNG
media_image1.png
38
25
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) at the fundamental frequency (f0), it will appear as a short circuit where it meets the first output arm 104 a, whereas the quarter-wave impedance transformer section 106 a will still appear as an open circuit at f0. All the current will be directed through the lossy transmission line of the resistive shunt 108 so that it will take the full current load. In the case that the total length of resistive shunt 108 is sufficient to achieve a distributed resistance of twice the characteristic impedance (2Z0), the energy will be completely transferred to heat.” [0033]. [See Clark, Figs. 1A-1C]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahmed’s method by incorporating Clark’s power combiner because Clark teaches that the same circuit operates as a combiner when signal direction is reversed, recovering the combined signal through even/odd superposition while directing odd-mode energy through the resistive shunt. Incorporating Clark’s combining with output-port isolation using a well-established RF combiner topology, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 20, Ahmed and Clark disclose the limitations of claim 20 as recited above in the rejection of claim 19. In addition, Ahmed teaches attenuating the first signal before adjusting the first phase, “adjusting 903 a phase shift and attenuation of the first signal to provide a first resultant signal at a first power output; which can include, e.g., using a first adjustable phase shifter and first adjustable attenuator that are each digitally controlled with each having multiple states.” [0049], and “It will be appreciated that the adjustable phase shifters and adjustable attenuators can be series coupled to each other in any order (i.e., phase shifter followed by attenuator as shown or vice versa).” [0055]. [See also Ahmed, FIG. 10]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Facchini et al. (US 20160269008 A1) - Power Splitter with Programmable Output Phase Shift, discloses Devices and methods for implementing an RF integrated circuit device operatively configured to provide the function of RF power splitter with programmable output phase shift are described. Configurable and adjustable phase shift units for use in such IC device are also described.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG PHUOC LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
SANG PHUOC. LE
Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/SANG PHUOC LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights