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 .
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 1-9 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.
For claim 1, the recitation “an input signal” on line 16 is indefinite because it is not clear if it is the same as “a control signal inputted to the control terminal” recited earlier on line 4. It is also unknown which terminal (or where) in the amplifier receiving “an input signal” (line 16). Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-9 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1. Note that, for claims 6 and 7, the recitation “the input signal” recited in these claims are also indefinite for the reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Also, for claim 9, the recitation “the first and second terminals” on line 4 is unclear antecedent because it is not clear “the first and second terminals” of which transistor that it refers to. Further, the recitation “control signal inputted to the control terminal” on line 4-5 is indefinite because “a control signal” is unclear antecedent basis since it is not clear if it is the same as “a control signal” recited earlier in claim 1; and “the control terminal” is unclear antecedent basis since it is not clear “the control terminal” of which transistor it refers to. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 212231409).
For claim 1, Figure 2 of Li et al. teaches a feedback amplifier comprising: an amplification transistor (FET1) which has a control terminal (gate of FET1) connected to an input terminal (RF_in), and has a first terminal (source of FET1 which connected to R5) and a second terminal (drain of FET1 which connected to R4-L4), and in which conductance of the first and second terminals is controlled by a control signal (RF_in) inputted to the control terminal (gate), and the first terminal (source) is grounded; a first feedback circuit R3-C2-L1) to provide negative feedback between the control and second terminals (gate and drain terminals) of the amplification transistor (FET1); a second feedback circuit L4) provided between an output terminal (junction terminal of R3, R4,L3 and L4) and the second terminal (drain) of the amplification transistor (FET1), and connected in series to the first feedback circuit (R3-C2-L1), to provide, via the first feedback circuit (R3-C2-L1), positive feedback between the control and second terminals (gate and drain terminals) of the amplification transistor (FET1); and a third feedback circuit (R4) connected in series to the first feedback circuit (R3-C2-L1) and connected in parallel to the second feedback circuit (L4), to adjust a stability factor of the feedback amplifier in a high frequency range outside a used frequency band, wherein an absolute value of an impedance in the third feedback circuit (R4) decreases as a frequency of an input signal (RF_in) becomes higher (this functional limitation is considered to be met because the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, then claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01).
For claim 2, Figure 2 of Li et al. teaches wherein the first feedback circuit (R3-C2-L1) includes an element (R3) having a resistive property.
For claim 3, Figure 2 of Li et al. teaches wherein the first feedback circuit (R3-C2-L1) is a series circuit in which a resistor (R3) and a capacitor (C2) are connected in series.
For claim 4, Figure 2 of Li et al. teaches wherein the third feedback circuit (R4) includes an element (R4) having a resistive property.
For claim 5, Figure 2 of Li et al. teaches wherein the second feedback circuit (L4) includes an element (L4) having a reactive property.
For claim 6, it is seen in the operation of Figure 2 of Li et al. that teaches wherein the absolute value of the impedance in the third feedback circuit (R4) is greater than that of an impedance in the second feedback circuit (L4), and a difference between the absolute values of both the impedances becomes smaller as the frequency of the input signal (RF_in) becomes higher (inherent behavior with respect to an increasing frequency of the resistor R4 which has an impedance absolute value substantially constant and compared to the inherent behavior of the inductor L4 which is increasing its impedance absolute value starting from zero to infinite with the increasing of the frequency of the operation signals. Also, this functional limitation is considered to be met because the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, then claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01).
For claim 7, Figure 2 of Li et al. teaches wherein the second feedback circuit (L4) is an inductor (L4) connected in series between the second terminal (drain) of the amplification transistor (FET1) and the output terminal (junction terminal of R3, R4,L3 and L4), and the absolute value of the impedance in the second feedback circuit increases as the frequency of the input signal becomes higher (inherent behavior with respect to an increasing frequency of the resistor R4 which has an impedance absolute value substantially constant and compared to the inherent behavior of the inductor L4 which is increasing its impedance absolute value starting from zero to infinite with the increasing of the frequency of the operation signals. Also, this functional limitation is considered to be met because the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, then claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01).
For claim 8, Figure 2 of Li et al. teaches wherein the second feedback circuit (L4) is an inductor (L4) connected in series between the second terminal (drain) of the amplification transistor (FET1) and the output terminal (junction terminal of R3, R4,L3 and L4), and the second feedback circuit (L4) resonates in series with output capacitance in a high frequency range within the used frequency band.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN (CN 212231409) in view of Nakatsuka et al. (JP 4-36140).
For claim 9, Figure 1 of Li et al. teaches a feedback amplifier which includes all the limitations of this claim (as discussed in claim 1 above) except for the feedback amplifier further comprising one or more transistors each of which has a control terminal grounded via a capacitor and connected via a resistor to a power supply, and has a first terminal and a second terminal, and in each of which conductance of the first and second terminals is controlled by a control signal inputted to the control terminal, wherein the one or more transistors are connected in series to the amplification transistor and the second terminal of the amplification transistor is connected via the one or more transistors to the second feedback circuit. However, Figure 1 of Nakatsuka et al. teaches a feedback amplifier that includes an amplification transistor (101) connected in series with an additional transistor (102) that has a control terminal (gate of 102) grounded via a capacitor (123) and connected via a resistor (112) to a power supply (141) for the purpose of improving the gain of the amplifier (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the before the invention was effectively filed to modify the feedback amplifier in Figure 1 of Li et al. by providing an additional transistor (102) in series to the amplifier transistor, as taught in Figure 1 of Nakatsuka et al., for the purpose of improving the gain of the amplifier. Thus, this combination/modification as discussed teaches all the limitations of this claim as the feedback amplifier now further comprising one or more transistors each of which has a control terminal grounded via a capacitor and connected via a resistor to a power supply, and has a first terminal and a second terminal, and in each of which conductance of the first and second terminals is controlled by a control signal inputted to the control terminal, wherein the one or more transistors are connected in series to the amplification transistor and the second terminal of the amplification transistor is connected via the one or more transistors to the second feedback circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fraser et al. (US 11,128,266) teaches amplifiers with feedback circuits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directly to Examiner Long Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1753. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Regis Betsch, can be reached at (571) 270-7101. The fax number for this group is (571) 273-8300.
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).
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.
/Long Nguyen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights