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 § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luetzelschwab et al (US 2004/0100341; art of record).
Regarding independent claim 1, Luetzelschwab teaches an integrated circuit comprising a switched transformer array, the switched transformer array comprising: a transformer primary side comprising at least a first transformer turn formed in a first metal layer and having first and second ends (fig. 1, [0029] and [0035]); a transformer secondary side comprising at least a first transformer turn formed in a second metal layer and having first and second ends (fig. 1, [0029] and [0035]); at least a first inductor strand formed in the first metal layer a first distance from the first transformer turn of the transformer primary side, the first inductor strand having first and second ends (fig. 1, 152a); at least a second inductor strand formed in one of the first metal layer and the second metal layer a second distance from the first inductor strand, the second inductor strand having first and second ends (fig. 1, 152a); a first switch (fig. 1, 154a) configured to selectively interconnect the first and second ends of the first inductor strand (fig. 1, 152a); and a second switch configured to selectively interconnect the first and second ends of the second inductor strand (fig. 1, 154n). Luetzelschwab fails to teach the integrated circuit is a beamformer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luetzelschwab to be used as a beamformer since it is just a matter of intended used of the invention. Moreover, it has been decided that selection of intended use of a prior art is an obvious expedient over the prior art. See M.P.E.P. 2144.07.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luetzelschwab et al (US 2004/0100341; art cited by applicant) in view of Chan (US 2011/0051308; art cited by applicant).
Regarding independent claim 13, Luetzelschwab teaches an integrated circuit (IC) comprising a switched inductor array, the switched inductor array comprising: N inductor strands (fig. 1, 152a to 154n) formed in a first metal layer preselected distances from one another, where N is a positive integer that is greater than or equal to 3 (fig. 1), each of the inductor strands having first and second ends; and at least N-1 switches (fig. 5 shows an embodiment where the first inductor 194 is fixed and not switched) interconnecting the first and second ends of N-1 of the inductor strands (fig. 1, 154a to 154n), respectively, the N-1 switches being configured to be activated and to be deactivated, wherein activation of one or more of the switches changes electromagnetic inductive characteristics of the switched inductor array, thereby changing an operating frequency of the first inductor array ([0051]). Luetzelschwab fails to teach the IC is a beamformer and each of the inductors is substantially circularly shaped and concentrically oriented in the first metal layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luetzelschwab to be used as a beamformer since it is just a matter of intended used of the invention. Moreover, it has been decided that selection of intended use of a prior art is an obvious expedient over the prior art. See M.P.E.P. 2144.07. In addition, realizing inductive strands in circular shape and in concentric manner is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications and particularly advantageous in integrated circuits in order to reduce space requirements (e.g. see Chan, figs. 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luetzelschwab by employing the teachings as taught by Chan in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding dependent claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Luetzelschwab as modified by Chan to operate in the frequency range as claimed since it is just a matter of designed option to tune to the desired operating frequency range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 and 14-19 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
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Khlat (US 2011/0222443), Chen et al (US 2018/0115198), Sharma et al (US 2021/0218375) and Liao et al (US 2026/0095204) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus of switched transformer array. However, none of the cited references teaches or suggests the further arrangements as recited in the dependent claims 3-12 and 14-19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights