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
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.
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 1-6, 9-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayranci et al. (US 20240007060 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 20170026021 A1).
Regarding claim 1, apparatus of claim 1 is performed by the apparatus of claim 9. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Ayranci further teaches the communication circuitry of claim 1 wherein the fixed voltage node is ground (Fig. 1 and Par. 50, RP terminal configured to be coupled to a reference potential (e.g., circuit ground)).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Ayranci further teaches a filter (Pars. 97-99).
The modified Ayranci does not specifically disclose the communication circuitry of claim 1 wherein the RF circuitry comprises inductors, capacitors, and resistors configured as a filter. However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Cheng. Cheng teaches a filter/IMF circuit that includes resistors, fixed capacitors, inductors (Fig. 9 and Par. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Cheng into Ayranci to design the integrated circuit based on a desired frequency range.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Ayranci further teaches a filter (Pars. 97-99).
The modified Ayranci does not specifically disclose the communication circuitry of claim 1 wherein the RF circuitry comprises acoustic resonators configured as an acoustic filter. However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Cheng. Cheng teaches the filter is acoustic wave including reactive components (i.e., inductor, capacitor, L-C filter) (Par. 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Cheng into Ayranci to design the integrated circuit based on a desired frequency range.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Ayranci further teaches the communication circuitry of claim 1 wherein the RF circuitry comprises a low-noise amplifier (Par. 109).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Ayranci further teaches the communication circuitry of claim 1 wherein the RF circuitry comprises a power amplifier (Par. 111).
Regarding claim 9, Ayranci a wireless communication device comprising: a baseband processor configured to digitize and process radio frequency (RF) signals (Fig. 15); communication circuitry configured to process analog versions of the RF signals between the baseband processor and the communication circuitry (Fig. 15), wherein the communication circuitry comprises; RF circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal (Fig. 1, RF(in) and RF(out)); and mutual inductance decoupling circuitry comprising: an input inductor coupled between the input terminal and a common node (Fig. 1 and Par. 50, Gate inductor L.sub.G is coupled between the RF(in)/IN terminal and node X (common node)); an output inductor coupled between the output terminal and the common node (Fig. 1 and Par. 50, L.sub.S is coupled between the DG terminal is connected to RF(out) and a node X (common node)), (Fig. 1 and Par. 52, a third inductor L.sub.R1 (compensation inductor) coupled between node X (common node)) and a fixed voltage node (Fig. 1 and Par. 50, an RP terminal configured to be coupled to a reference potential (e.g., circuit ground)),
Ayranci does not disclose wherein the input inductor and the output inductor are configured to have a negative mutual inductance, and wherein the compensation inductor is configured to have a self-inductance that substantially cancels the negative mutual inductance between the input inductor and the output inductor. However, this feature is well-known and cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Cheng. Cheng teaches the two series connected inductors inductors L1s’ and L2s’ are mutually coupled by the inductance having a negative inductance −M (Fig. 5), wherein a value of −M is selected to cancel out parasitic tunable capacitor inductance Lp1, such parasitic inductances arise from the self-inductance of tunable capacitor C1.sub.T (Par. 39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Cheng into Ayranci to reduce production costs while maintaining high performance and without the adverse effects of mutual inductive coupling as occur in conventional designs.
Regarding claim 10, apparatus of claim 10 is performed by the apparatus of claim 5. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, apparatus of claim 11 is performed by the apparatus of claim 6. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, apparatus of claim 12 is performed by the apparatus of claim 3. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, apparatus of claim 13 is performed by the apparatus of claim 4. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, apparatus of claim 14 is performed by the apparatus of claim 2. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, apparatus of claim 15 is performed by the apparatus of claim 5. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, apparatus of claim 16 is performed by the apparatus of claim 6. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, method of claim 19 is performed by the apparatus of claim 9. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 9.
Claims 7, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayranci et al. (US 20240007060 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 20170026021 A1) and further view Wu (US 20240100972 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Ayranci does not specifically disclose the communication circuitry of claim 1 wherein the inductance of the compensation inductor is sized based upon magnetic coupling coefficients between the input inductor, the output inductor, and the compensation inductor.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Wu. Wu teaches mutual inductance of magnetic coupling of the coil is proportional to the number of turns, the more the number of turns of the pickup coil, the greater the mutual inductance of the coupling mechanism (Par. 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Wu into Ayranci to ensure the effective size of the mutual inductance.
Regarding claim 17, apparatus of claim 17 is performed by the apparatus of claim 7. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, method of claim 20 is performed by the apparatus of claim 7. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayranci et al. (US 20240007060 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (US 20170026021 A1) and further view Wang et al. (US 20200373897 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Ayranci does not specifically disclose the communications circuitry of claim 1 wherein the mutual inductance between the input inductor and the output inductor is substantially zero.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Wang. Wang teaches a coupling coefficient corresponding to mutual magnetic coupling between the first inductor and the second inductor is established at an intermediate value between zero and one (Par. 6, 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Wang into Ayranci to provide a substantially linear phase response.
Regarding claim 18, apparatus of claim 18 is performed by the apparatus of claim 8. They recite similar limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liao et al. US 20240203871 A1 [0028] The negative differential Tcoil 210−, in turn, includes a first inductor L.sub.1− and a second inductor L.sub.2−, magnetically coupled together by substantially the same mutual inductance factor “k”.
Teng et al. US 12159648 B1 (13) The T-coil can be viewed as having the magnetic coupling action of a transformer whose coils are wound to form a negative mutual inductance. With proper design, the negative mutual inductance element can cancel the loading capacitance Cui that occurs at the center tap because of the series connection.
Zhang et al. US 10505456 B1 (27) FIG. 3C shows the elevation cross-sectional view of FIG. 3B including the proximity of the mutual coupled inductors 350, 351 to conductive structures that source or sink current. In an embodiment, such conductive structures include wires 320, 330 providing respective power and return lines of a power grid for the semiconductor chip. In an embodiment, FIG. 3C depicts a magnetic coupling 300 of the air-core inductors 350, 351. Depending upon the distance “s” between an air-core inductor 350, 351 and a respective power grid line 320, 330 will determine the strength of the magnetic field. In an embodiment, the greater the spaced distance “s” means the higher the self-inductance of each inductor. While a greater distance “s” also means larger physical size of the device, there is a trade-off between high inductance and size compactness. In further embodiments, magnetic coupling due to power grid currents can be reduced or eliminated by embedding the open slab inductors in a magnetic shielding layer.
Ishihara et al. US 20250070724 A1 teaches two series connected inductors for use as the inductors L1 and L2 of multifunctional filter (220) are mutually coupled by an inductance having a negative inductance −M (Fig. 4A and Par. 49).
Hecht (US 6211738 B1) teaches an apparatus comprising an amplifier having an input terminal and an output terminal. A first inductor is coupled to the input terminal of the amplifier and a second inductor is coupled to the output terminal of the amplifier, the first inductor and the second inductor are positioned relative to each other to create a mutual inductance which cancels at least a portion of feedback in the amplifier, wherein the mutual inductance is created between the output terminal of the amplifier and the input terminal of the amplifier (Summary).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights