DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US PGPUB 2005/0239430) in view of Mu et al (US PGPUB 2013/0183921).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 2 of Shah discloses a harmonic mixer, comprising:
a multi-phase LO signal generator, each phase of the multi-phase LO signal generator outputting an LO signal on a signal line [200]
a plurality of mixers, each mixer of the plurality of mixers connected to a signal line [110 Figure 1]
an output network coupled to the outputs of the plurality of mixers [120 and 130 Figure 1]
Shah does not explicitly disclose the mixer driven by an intermediate frequency (IF).
Mu discloses the mixer driven by an intermediate frequency (IF) [Abstract].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an IF signal driving the mixers as taught by Mu in the mixer of Shah for the purpose of maximizing harmonic suppression of IF signals, as implied by Shah [Abstract].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shah and Mu, as applied to claim 1, discloses wherein the multi-phase LO signal generator produces (2N+1) LO signals at the same frequency with equally spaced phase, where N is a non-negative integer greater than zero [Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6 Shah].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shah and Mu, as applied to claim 1, discloses wherein the multi-phase LO signal generator produces multi-phase LO generation uses at least one of a delay-locked-loop (DLL), poly-phase filter, or phase shifters [Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6 Shah].
Regarding claim 9, Figure 2 of Shah discloses a method in a harmonic mixer, the method comprising:
outputting an LO signal on a signal line in each phase of a multi-phase LO signal generator [200]
driving each mixer of a plurality of mixers [110 Figure 1]
each mixer of the plurality of mixers connected to a signal line [110 Figure 1]
coupling an output network to the outputs of the plurality of mixers [120 and 130 Figure 1]
Shah does not explicitly disclose driving each mixer of a plurality of mixers by an intermediate frequency (IF).
Mu discloses driving a mixer by an intermediate frequency (IF) [Abstract].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an IF signal driving the mixers as taught by Mu in the mixer of Shah for the purpose of maximizing harmonic suppression of IF signals, as implied by Shah [Abstract].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Shah and Mu, as applied to claim 9, discloses producing (2N+1) LO signals at the same frequency with equally spaced phase, where N is a non-negative integer greater than zero [Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6 Shah].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Shah and Mu, as applied to claim 9, discloses producing multi-phase LO generation using at least one of a delay-locked-loop (DLL), poly-phase filter, or phase shifters [Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6 Shah].
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US PGPUB 2005/0239430) in view of Mu et al (US PGPUB 2013/0183921) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US PGPUB 2015/0188741).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shah and Mu, as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose wherein the harmonic mixer comprises a harmonic up-conversion mixer.
Chen discloses wherein the harmonic mixer comprises a harmonic up-conversion mixer [Abstract].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included harmonic up-conversion mixers as taught by Chen for the mixers of the combination of Shah and Mu, as applied to claim 1, for the purpose of converting the mixing system to up-conversion.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shah, Mu, and Chen, as applied to claim 2, discloses wherein the harmonic up-conversion mixer provides inherently linear operation [Figures 4 and 7 Chen].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shah and Mu, as applied to claim 9, does not explicitly disclose wherein the harmonic mixer comprises a harmonic up-conversion mixer.
Chen discloses wherein the harmonic mixer comprises a harmonic up-conversion mixer [Abstract].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included harmonic up-conversion mixers as taught by Chen for the mixers of the combination of Shah and Mu, as applied to claim 9, for the purpose of converting the mixing system to up-conversion.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shah, Mu, and Chen, as applied to claim 10, discloses providing inherently linear operation with the harmonic up-conversion mixer [Figures 4 and 7 Chen].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tomi S Skibinski whose telephone number is (571)270-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 10am - 8pm.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/TOMI SKIBINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842