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 filed on 10/10/2024 has been considered and
placed in the application file.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McLaren (U.S. 9,667,199).
Regarding claim 1, McLaren (hereinafter, Ref~199) discloses (please see Figs. 1-7 and related text for details) a Doherty amplifier circuit (e.g., 100 of Fig. 1) comprising:
a divider (110 of Fig. 1) configured to divide an input signal (102 of Fig. 1) into a first signal (being used by main amplifier 143 of Fig. 1), a second signal (used by first peaking amplifier 144 of Fig. 1 ) and a third signal (used by second/last peaking amplifier 145 of Fig. 1) and makes power of the second signal larger than that of the third signal (as described in col. 3, between lines 55-65, unequal power);
a main amplifier (143 of Fig. 1) configured to amplify the first signal and output the first signal after amplifying as a fourth signal (output from main amplifier 143 of Fig. 1);
a first peak amplifier (144 of Fig. 1) configured to amplify the second signal and output the second signal after amplifying as a fifth signal (output from peaking amplifier 144 of Fig. 1);
a second peak amplifier (145 of Fig. 1) configured to amplify the third signal and output the third signal after amplifying as a sixth signal (output from peak amplifier 145 of Fig. 1); and
a combiner (170 of Fig. 1) configured to combine the fourth signal, the fifth signal and the sixth signal and output a combined signal (disposed at common node 175 of Fig. 1) of the fourth signal, the fifth signal and the sixth signal as an output signal to an output terminal (104 of Fig. 1), wherein an input power of the input signal for turning on the first peak amplifier is smaller than the input power for turning on the second peak amplifier, since the peaking amplifiers are turned on sequentially as power levels increase as described, for instance, in col. 1, between lines 45-55, meeting claim 1.
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaren (U.S. 9,667,199)
Regarding claim 2, Ref~199 teaches “wherein when the main amplifier and the first peak amplifier are operating and the second peak amplifier is not operating as described throughout the disclosure, but does not expressly suggest the claimed “…a first distance between a first position on a Smith chart of impedance at a center frequency of an operating band in a case of seeing the combiner from the first peak amplifier and a second position on the Smith chart of the impedance at the center frequency in a case of seeing the combiner from the first peak amplifier at which the gain of the first peak amplifier is maximum is smaller than a second distance between a position on the Smith chart of impedance at the center frequency in a case of seeing the combiner from the main amplifier and a position on the Smith chart of the impedance at the center frequency in a case of seeing the combiner from the main amplifier at which the gain of the main amplifier is maximum”. However, these are normal design parameters/features in the art (also see Figs. 4-7 for details) depending on custom specifications to balance between efficiency vs. linearity, meeting claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Ref~199 discloses the claimed structure, but does not expressly teach “wherein the first position on the Smith chart is located within a circle having the second position as center thereof and a diameter equal to a distance between the second position and a third position on the Smith chart of the impedance at the center frequency in a case of seeing the combiner from the first peak amplifier, at which the efficiency of the first peak amplifier is maximized”. However, these are normal design parameters/features in the art (also see Figs. 4-7 for details) depending on custom specifications, meeting claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Ref~199 discloses the claimed structure, but not expressly suggest “wherein when the main amplifier, the first peak amplifier and the second peak amplifier are operating, a third distance between a fourth position on the Smith chart of the impedance at the center frequency in a case of seeing the combiner from the first peak amplifier and the second position is less than or equal to the first distance”. However, these are normal design parameters/features in the art (also see Figs. 4-7 for details) depending on custom specifications, meeting claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Ref~199 supports the claimed “wherein when a same bias voltage is supplied to the first peak amplifier and the second peak amplifier, a saturation electrical power of the first peak amplifier is larger than that of the second peak amplifier”, since each of said peak amplifiers would reach saturation point differently as described throughout the disclosure and transistors may be unequal as described, for instance, in col. 7, between lines 20-30, thus obviating that the bias voltage would be the same. In other words, the saturation point would depend on the transistor sizes, meeting claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Ref~199 supports the claimed “wherein when a same bias voltage is supplied to the first peak amplifier and the second peak amplifier, a saturation electrical power of the first peak amplifier is equal to that of the second peak amplifier”, since these are normal design parameters/features in the art depending on custom specifications, meeting claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEU P NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-8577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, YOUNGHUIE HAN (Jessica) can be reached on 571-272-2078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HIEU P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights