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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 11/11/2024. Claims 1 – 30 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 24 – 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200112348 (Pehlke) in view of US 20160218852 (Akula).
Regarding claim 1, Pehlke teaches “A radio frequency (RF) signal receiver (shown in FIG 3 and 4 with corresponding description. Paragraph 0109: UL CA MB module 170a.)…”
Pehlke teaches in paragraph 0103 that the output pins MB1_RX and MB2_RX of the UL CA MB module 170a are coupled to the PRX_MB pins of the RFIC 110. Pehlke does not disclose internal structure of the RFIC 110 and thus does not disclose presence of “a set of downconverters” within the RFIC 110. In Pehlke, output pins MB1_RX and MB2_RX of the UL CA MB module 170a represent outputs from a plurality of low noise amplifiers 311 – 315.
In similar art, Akula in FIG 3 with corresponding description also teaches a receiver structure 230 comprising a plurality of low noise amplifiers. However, unlike Pehlke, Akula discloses where the outputs of the low noise amplifiers are connected to. As disclosed in paragraph 0019, the LNA system 230 is configured to direct the amplified signals to the demodulator system 240 which includes three demodulators 242, 244, 246 for demodulating signals in three different frequency bands for a particular band class (e.g., low, mid, or high). Although the demodulator system 240 in FIG. 2 shows only three demodulators 242, 244, 246, more than three demodulators operating in more than three different bands can be configured. As further stated in paragraph 0023, each demodulator 242, 244, 246 in the demodulator system 240 includes a mixer 330, 332, 334 and a baseband filter 340, 342, 344. In other words, Akula teaches “a set of downconverters” implemented as plurality of demodulators each comprising corresponding mixer, inputs of which connected to the outputs of the low noise amplifier system.
Therefore, since Pehlke does not disclose internal structure of the RFIC 110, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Akula demodulators each comprising corresponding mixer, inputs of which connected to the outputs of the low noise amplifier system, in the system of Pehlke simply to fill in where Pehlke is silent and yielding predictable results since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Therefore, the system of combined Pehlke and Akula’s disclosures would have met the limitations of claim 1 in the following manner. To help understand mapping, the Examiner also made Sketch 1 below with annotations.
“a set of downconverters (marked in Sketch 1 is such);
a set of passive signal routing paths extending from a first signal splitting node (quadplexer 322) to the set of downconverters via a first set of switching devices (switches 314 and 316), respectively (“a set of passive signal routing paths” shown in Sketch 1 as solid wide lines extending from the quadplexer 322 representing “a first signal splitting node” all the way to the downconverters through the switches 314 and 316); and
a set of active signal routing paths extending from the first signal splitting node (quadplexer 322) or a second signal splitting node (represented by the switch 324) to the set of downconverters via a set of amplifiers (amplifiers 313 and 315), respectively (“a set of active signal routing paths” is shown in Sketch 1 as dashed wide lines extending from the quadplexer 322 representing “a first signal splitting node” all the way to the downconverters through the amplifiers 313 and 315).”
PNG
media_image1.png
956
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sketch 1
Regarding claim 2, Pehlke teaches or fairly suggests “further comprising a control circuit (paragraph 0132: FIG. 3 shows that some or all of amplification and switching functionalities of the UL CA MB module 170a can be controlled by a control component such as a MIPI controller 302.) configured to turn on the first set of switching devices in accordance with a first receive mode, wherein: the first signal splitting node is configured to split a first RF signal into a first set of RF signal portions, and the set of passive signal routing paths are configured to route the first set of RF signal portions to the set of downconverters via the first set of switching devices while bypassing the set of active signal routing paths, respectively (this is shown in Sketch 1 above as two solid lines representing signal paths that would be present when both switches 314 and 316 (“the first set of switching devices”) are turned on so that respective amplifiers are bypassed).”
Regarding claim 5, Pehlke in combination with Akula teaches or fairly suggests “the first RF signal includes a set of signal-modulated carriers situated within a set of frequency bands (Pehlke, paragraph 0126: FIG. 3 shows an example of the UL CA MB module 170a as being configured to provide TX/RX duplexing functionality for three bands A, B and C. Some or all of such three bands can be selected to allow downlink (DL) carrier aggregation. Also, Akula, paragraph 0016), and the set of downconverters are configured to frequency downconvert the set of signal-modulated carriers into a set of baseband signals, respectively (Akula, paragraph 0023: a plurality of demodulators 242, 244, 246 tuned to demodulate the aggregated carriers down to the baseband.).”
Regarding claim 15, Pehlke in combination with Akula teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the set of amplifiers are coupled between the second signal splitting node and the set of downconverters, respectively (as shown in Sketch 1 above, the amplifiers 313 and 315 are connected between the switch 324 representing “the second signal splitting node” and the downconverters.”
Regarding claim 24, Pehlke in combination with Akula teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the set of active signal routing paths extend from the first signal splitting node to the set of downconverters via the set of amplifiers, respectively (please see Sketch 1 above showing dashed wide lines extending from the quadplexer 322 representing “a first signal splitting node” all the way to the downconverters through the amplifiers 313 and 315).”
Regarding claim 25, Pehlke in combination with Akula teaches or fairly suggests “further comprising a control circuit configured to operate the set of passive signal routing paths and/or the set of active routing paths to route a radio frequency (RF) signal to the set of downconverters (Pehlke, paragraph 0132: FIG. 3 shows that some or all of amplification and switching functionalities of the UL CA MB module 170a can be controlled by a control component such as a MIPI controller 302.), wherein the RF signal includes a set of carriers in accordance with a carrier aggregation receive mode (Pehlke, paragraph 0126: FIG. 3 shows an example of the UL CA MB module 170a as being configured to provide TX/RX duplexing functionality for three bands A, B and C. Some or all of such three bands can be selected to allow downlink (DL) carrier aggregation. Also, Akula, paragraph 0016).”
Regarding claims 26 and 30, Pehlke in combination with Akula as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches or fairly suggests “A method of receiving and processing radio frequency (RF) signals, comprising:
splitting an RF signal into a set of RF signal portions (implemented in the quadplexer 322 shown in Pehlke’s FIG 3 and 4); and
routing at least one of the set of RF signal portions to at least one of a set of downconverters via at least one of a set of passive signal routing paths extending from a first signal splitting node to the at least one of the set of downconverters (“a set of passive signal routing paths” shown in Sketch 1 as solid wide lines extending from the quadplexer 322 representing “a first signal splitting node” all the way to the downconverters through the switches 314 and 316. Therefore, simply for the sake of mapping the limitation of this claim onto the combined teaching of Pehlke and Akula, “at least one of a set of passive signal routing paths” is shown as an upper solid wide line extending from the quadplexer 322 through switch 316 all the way to the upper downconverter), while bypassing at least one of a set of active signal routing paths extending from the first signal splitting node or a second signal splitting node to the at least one of the set of downconverters, respectively (“a set of active signal routing paths” is shown in Sketch 1 as dashed wide lines extending from the quadplexer 322 representing “a first signal splitting node” all the way to the downconverters through the amplifiers 313 and 315. When the switches 314 and 316 are on, respective amplifiers 313 and 315 are bypassed. Therefore, simply for the sake of mapping the limitation of this claim onto the combined teaching of Pehlke and Akula, “at least one of a set of active signal routing paths” is shown as an upper dashed wide line extending from the quadplexer 322 through amplifier 315 all the way to the upper downconverter, which is bypassed when the switch 316 is on).”
Regarding claim 27, Pehlke in combination with Akula teaches or fairly suggests “further comprising routing at least another one of the set of RF signal portions to at least another one of the set of downconverters via at least another one of the set of active signal routing paths, respectively (“at least another one of the set of active signal routing paths” is shown as a lower solid wide line extending from the quadplexer 322 through amplifier 313 all the way to the lower downconverter. This routing happens when corresponding switch 314 is off).”
Regarding claim 28, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 because they have similar limitations.
Claims 3 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200112348 (Pehlke) in view of US 20160218852 (Akula) as applied to claims 2 and 5 above, and further in view of US 20190132063 (Forbes).
Regarding claim 3, Pehlke does not disclose “wherein the control circuit, in accordance with the first receive mode, is configured to turn off the set of amplifiers.”
As was explained in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above, “the first receive mode” includes passing the signal along “a set of passive signal routing paths” as shown in Sketch 1 above which include switches 314 and 316. In other words, the signal passes through the bypass of each amplifier without being amplified.
Forbes in FIG 1 with corresponding description also teaches a similar low noise amplifier bypass circuit. As further disclosed in paragraph 0028 and FIG 4, when a packet is detected, the system proceeds to step 410 where the power level of the packet is determined and compared to a predetermined threshold. If the packet's power level exceeds the threshold, the system proceeds to step 415 to bypass and turn off the LNA 115. Paragraph 0018: This allows the LNA to power down when the LNA 115 will not be used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Forbes criterion of comparing the received signal to a threshold and based on the result making determination of whether amplify the signal in the amplifier, or bypass the amplifier and turn it off, in the system of combined Pehlke and Akula’s disclosures by applying this arrangement to each of the amplifiers 313 and 315. Doing so would have allowed to reduce power consumption of the system by powering off amplifiers when they are not used (see Forbes, paragraph 0001).
In the system of combined Pehlke, Akula and Forbes’s disclosures, as was explained above, in “the first receive mode”, none of the amplifiers 313 and 315 is operational since they are bypassed. Based on Forbes’s disclosure, these amplifiers would be turned off.
Regarding claim 8, Pehlke does not disclose “wherein the control circuit is configured to turn on the first set of switching devices in accordance with the first receive mode based on the set of baseband signals each having a power level above a threshold.”
As was explained in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above, “the first receive mode” includes passing the signal along “a set of passive signal routing paths” as shown in Sketch 1 above which include switches 314 and 316. In other words, the signal passes through the bypass of each amplifier without being amplified.
Forbes in FIG 1 with corresponding description also teaches a similar low noise amplifier bypass circuit. As further disclosed in paragraph 0028 and FIG 4, when a packet is detected, the system proceeds to step 410 where the power level of the packet is determined and compared to a predetermined threshold. If the packet's power level exceeds the threshold, the system proceeds to step 415 to bypass and turn off the LNA 115. Paragraph 0018: This allows the LNA to power down when the LNA 115 will not be used. Paragraph 0012: The signal power detector circuit 155 determines the power level of the received signal. This detector circuit is located in the baseband domain. In other words, this powering down and bypassing the low noise amplifier is “based on the” “baseband signals … having a power level above a threshold.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Forbes criterion of comparing the received signal in the baseband to a threshold and based on the result making determination of whether amplify the signal in the amplifier, or bypass the amplifier and turn it off, in the system of combined Pehlke and Akula’s disclosures by applying this arrangement to each of the amplifiers 313 and 315. Doing so would have allowed to reduce power consumption of the system by powering off amplifiers when they are not used (see Forbes, paragraph 0001).
In the system of combined Pehlke, Akula and Forbes’s disclosures, as was explained above, in “the first receive mode”, none of the amplifiers 313 and 315 is operational since they are bypassed and the signal is passed through the switches 314 and 316. Based on Forbes’s disclosure, when the level of the received signal in the baseband exceeds the threshold, the amplifiers would be bypassed and turned off. Bypassing the amplifiers means that “the first set of switching devices” 314 and 316 are turned on, as is required by the claim.
Claims 4, 9, 10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200112348 (Pehlke) in view of US 20160218852 (Akula) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 8970296 (Pratt).
Regarding claim 4, Pehlke does not disclose “the set of active signal routing paths comprise a second set of switching devices coupled in series with the set of amplifiers between the first or second signal splitting node and the set of downconverters, respectively, and the control circuit, in accordance with the first receive mode, is configured to turn off the second set of switching devices.”
Pratt in FIG 1A-C with corresponding description teaches circuit diagrams representing various modes of an amplification circuit 100, in which a signal amplification path and a signal bypass path are arranged in parallel relation between an input 102 and output 104 with respect to forward signal propagation. Switch 106 represents a “switching device coupled in series with” an amplifier, while switch 112 corresponds to switches 314 and 316 of Pehlke. In operation, see col. 5 lines 4 – 15, an on state of the amplification circuit 100 is represented in FIG. 1B, in which the switch 106 is closed, providing a low impedance path from the input 102 to the input of the amplifier 110 along the signal amplification path. The amplifier 110 is turned on to amplify the incoming signal and send an amplified signal to the output 104. Isolation switch 106 (read 112) is open such that the signal bypass path becomes a high impedance path in parallel with the signal amplification path. This ensures that there is only one viable path, the signal amplification path, from the input 102 to the output 104 for signal propagation, ensuring proper operation. Operation in the bypass mode is described in col. 5 lines 19 – 30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Pratt an additional switch coupled in series with a low noise amplifier, in the system of Pehlke, by adding the switch to each of the low noise amplifiers 313 and 315. Doing so would have ensured proper operation by providing that there is only one viable path in each mode (either amplification or bypass).
In the system of combined Pehlke, Akula and Pratt’s disclosures, since each of the amplifiers 313 and 315 would have an associated switch connected in series, this would correspond to the claimed “a second set of switching devices coupled in series with the set of amplifiers between the first or second signal splitting node and the set of downconverters”. Further, “the active signal routing paths”, as shown in Sketch 1 above, would comprise this “second set of switching devices” so that when “the passive signal routing paths” are enabled, these switches in series with the amplifiers would be turned off as shown in Pratt’s FIG 1C, thus meeting the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Pehlke in combination with Akula does not disclose the limitations of claim 9.
Pratt in FIG 1A-C with corresponding description teaches circuit diagrams representing various modes of an amplification circuit 100, in which a signal amplification path and a signal bypass path are arranged in parallel relation between an input 102 and output 104 with respect to forward signal propagation. Switch 106 represents a “switching device coupled in series with” an amplifier (as recited in claim 10, considered below), while switch 112 corresponds to switches 314 and 316 of Pehlke. In operation, see col. 5 lines 4 – 15, an on state of the amplification circuit 100 is represented in FIG. 1B, in which the switch 106 is closed, providing a low impedance path from the input 102 to the input of the amplifier 110 along the signal amplification path. The amplifier 110 is turned on to amplify the incoming signal and send an amplified signal to the output 104. Isolation switch 106 (read 112) is open such that the signal bypass path becomes a high impedance path in parallel with the signal amplification path. This ensures that there is only one viable path, the signal amplification path, from the input 102 to the output 104 for signal propagation, ensuring proper operation. Operation in the bypass mode is described in col. 5 lines 19 – 30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Pratt an additional switch coupled in series with a low noise amplifier, in the system of Pehlke, by adding the switch to each of the low noise amplifiers 313 and 315. Doing so would have ensured proper operation by providing that there is only one viable path in each mode (either amplification or bypass).
When each low noise amplifier 313 and 315 has a respective switch connected in series as disclosed by Pratt, the resulting circuit would look like the one shown below in Sketch 2. It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that the signals would propagate along the paths according to the claim:
PNG
media_image2.png
876
1432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sketch 2
Thus, the claim is met in the following way: “wherein the control circuit, in accordance with a second receive mode, is configured to: turn on at least one of the first set of switching devices (switch 316 is on so that the amplifier 315 is bypassed) and turn off at least another one of the first set of switching devices (switch 314 is off); and turn on at least one of the set of amplifiers (since the switch 314 is off, the respective amplifier 313 is active); wherein: the first or second signal splitting node is configured to split a second RF signal into a second set of RF signal portions (implemented at the quadplexer 322), at least one of the set of passive signal routing paths is configured to route at least one of the second set of RF signal portions to at least one of the set of downconverters via the at least one of the first set of switching devices (clearly marked in Sketch 2 as wide solid line going through the switch 316), and at least one of the set of active signal routing paths is configured to route at least another one of the second set of RF signal portions to at least another one of the set of downconverters via the at least one of the set of amplifiers (clearly marked in Sketch 2 as wide dashed line going through the amplifier 313), respectively.”
Regarding claim 10, Pehlke in combination with Akula and Pratt teaches or fairly suggests “wherein: the set of active signal routing paths include a second set of switching devices coupled in series with the set of amplifiers between the first or second splitting node and the set of downconverters (in the rejection of claim 9 above it was shown the obviousness of using the switch as disclosed by Pratt in series with each amplifier. In Sketch 2 they are also shown at the input of each amplifier 313 and 315), and the at least one of the set of active signal routing paths is configured to route the at least another one of the second set of RF signal portions to the at least another one of the set of downconverters via at least one of the second set of switching devices, respectively (the wide dashed line in Sketch 2 that goes through the amplifier 313 also goes through the associated switch from “the second set of switching devices”).”
Regarding claim 13, Pehlke in combination with Akula and Pratt teaches or fairly suggests “wherein: the second RF signal includes a set of signal-modulated carriers situated within a set of frequency bands, respectively (Pehlke, paragraph 0126: FIG. 3 shows an example of the UL CA MB module 170a as being configured to provide TX/RX duplexing functionality for three bands A, B and C. Some or all of such three bands can be selected to allow downlink (DL) carrier aggregation. Also, Akula, paragraph 0016);
the at least one of the set of downconverters is configured to frequency downconvert at least one of the set of signal-modulated carriers into at least one of a set of baseband signals, respectively (Pehlke, paragraph 0134: the first band (A) of FIG. 3 can be, for example, B3 band with a RX frequency range of 1,805 to 1,880 MHz. Further, the second band (B) of FIG. 3 can be, for example, B1 band with a RX frequency range of 2,110 to 2,170 MHz. Therefore, and looking at Sketch 2 above, when “at least one of the set of signal-modulated carriers” is within B3 band, it will go through the switch 316 towards upper downconverter (“at least one of the set of downconverters”)); and
the at least another one of the set of downconverters is configured to frequency downconvert at least another one of the set of signal-modulated carriers into at least another one of the set of baseband signals, respectively (when “at least another one of the set of signal-modulated carriers” is within B1 band, it will go through the amplifier 313 towards lower downconverter (“at least another one of the set of downconverters”)).”
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected in view of Pratt because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 because they have similar limitations. Additionally, position of the “second set of switching devices” is exactly between the switch 324 (representing “the second signal splitting node”) “and the set of downconverters”, as may be seen from Sketch 2 above.
Claims 6, 7 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200112348 (Pehlke) in view of US 20160218852 (Akula) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of information well known in the art evidenced by US 20200336110 (Drogi).
Regarding claim 6, Pehlke in combination with Akula does not explicitly disclose “wherein at least two of the set of frequency bands are disjoined in frequency in accordance with non-contiguous carrier aggregation (NCCA).”
However, such arrangement of carriers as non-contiguous carrier aggregation was well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application, as may be evidenced by Drogi, FIG 2C and paragraph 0106: the second carrier aggregation scenario 35 and the third carrier aggregation scenario 36 illustrates two examples of aggregation that are non-contiguous, but located within the same frequency band. Furthermore, the fourth carrier aggregation scenario 37 and the fifth carrier aggregation scenario 38 illustrates two examples of aggregation in which component carriers that are non-adjacent in frequency and in multiple frequency bands are aggregated.
Note: “frequency bands” of current claim corresponds to the width of each carrier in Drogi’s FIG 2C, such as the width of fDL1, fDL3 etc., not the bands shown in FIG 2C, such as BAND1, BAND2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the device of combined Pehlke and Akula’s disclosures in a non-contiguous carrier aggregation scenario. Doing so would have allowed to use the device in such systems which utilize this type of carrier aggregation.
Regarding claim 7, Pehlke in combination with Akula does not explicitly disclose “wherein at least two of the set of frequency bands are contiguous in frequency in accordance with contiguous carrier aggregation (CCA).”
However, such arrangement of carriers as contiguous carrier aggregation was well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application, as may be evidenced by Drogi, FIG 2C and paragraph 0106: the first carrier aggregation scenario 34 depicts aggregation of component carriers that are contiguous and located within the same frequency band.
Note: “frequency bands” of current claim corresponds to the width of each carrier in Drogi’s FIG 2C, such as the width of fDL1, fDL2 etc., not the bands shown in FIG 2C, such as BAND1, BAND2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the device of combined Pehlke and Akula’s disclosures in a contiguous carrier aggregation scenario. Doing so would have allowed to use the device in such systems which utilize this type of carrier aggregation.
Regarding claim 29, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 6 and/or 7 because they have similar limitations.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200112348 (Pehlke) in view of US 20160218852 (Akula) and US 8970296 (Pratt) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of information well known in the art evidenced by US 20200336110 (Drogi).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 6 (which includes the limitations of claim 5) because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 7 (which includes the limitations of claim 5) because they have similar limitations.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200112348 (Pehlke) in view of US 20160218852 (Akula) and US 8970296 (Pratt) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 20190132063 (Forbes).
Regarding claim 14, Pehlke in combination with Akula and Pratt teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the control circuit is configured to turn on the at least one of the first set of switching devices (in Sketch 2 above, switch 316 is turned on), turn off the at least another one of the first set of switching devices (in Sketch 2 above, switch 314 is turned off), and turn on the at least one of the set of amplifiers in accordance with the second receive mode (in Sketch 2 above, amplifier 313 is on by the virtue of the switch connected to its input being on)…”
Pehlke in combination with Akula and Pratt does not disclose that the operation of the switches is “based on: the at least one of the set of the set of baseband signals each having a power level above a threshold; and the at least another one of the set of the set of baseband signals each having a power level below the threshold.”
Forbes in FIG 1 with corresponding description also teaches a similar low noise amplifier bypass circuit. As further disclosed in paragraph 0028 and FIG 4, when a packet is detected, the system proceeds to step 410 where the power level of the packet is determined and compared to a predetermined threshold. If the packet's power level exceeds the threshold, the system proceeds to step 415 to bypass and turn off the LNA 115. Paragraph 0018: This allows the LNA to power down when the LNA 115 will not be used. Paragraph 0012: The signal power detector circuit 155 determines the power level of the received signal. This detector circuit is located in the baseband domain. In other words, this powering down and bypassing the low noise amplifier is “based on the” “baseband signals … having a power level above a threshold.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Forbes criterion of comparing the received signal in the baseband to a threshold and based on the result making determination of whether amplify the signal in the amplifier, or bypass the amplifier and turn it off, in the system of combined Pehlke, Akula and Pratt’s disclosures by applying this arrangement to each of the amplifiers 313 and 315. Doing so would have allowed to reduce power consumption of the system by powering off amplifiers when they are not used (see Forbes, paragraph 0001).
In the system of combined Pehlke, Akula, Pratt and Forbes’s disclosures, as was explained above and based on Forbes’s disclosure, operation of the switches in a particular signal path would be based on corresponding baseband signal being above or below a threshold. Particularly, in the situation when “the at least one of the set of the set of baseband signals each having a power level above a threshold”, the bypass switch in corresponding signal path would be on and the amplifier would be off. Similarly, in the situation when “the at least another one of the set of the set of baseband signals each having a power level below the threshold”, the bypass switch in corresponding signal path would be off and the amplifier would be on, as is required by the claim.
Claims 1, 15 – 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10326484 (Ayranci) in view of US 8970296 (Pratt).
Regarding claim 1, Ayranci teaches “A radio frequency (RF) signal receiver (shown in FIG 13 with corresponding description), comprising:
a set of downconverters (mixer 1310 in FIG 13; col. 19 lines 34 – 35: The output of the RFFE amplifier 200 coupled to a mixer 1310. However, the internal structure of the amplifier 200 is shown in FIG 2A. Indeed, col. 6 lines 61 – 65: FIG. 2A is an illustration of a front end circuit configuration (FECC) 200 of a communications receiver capable of handling several combinations of signals having frequencies within supported frequency ranges, the signals aggregated together in a carrier aggregation (CA) signal. FIG 2A clearly shows that the circuit has at least three outputs to be connected to the transceiver through the switch matrix. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use the number of mixers (downconverters) corresponding to the number of the outputs, thus arriving at the claimed “a set of downconverters”)…”
Ayranci does not disclose “a set of passive signal routing paths extending from a first signal splitting node to the set of downconverters via a first set of switching devices, respectively; and a set of active signal routing paths extending from the first signal splitting node or a second signal splitting node to the set of downconverters via a set of amplifiers, respectively.”
Pratt in FIG 1A-C with corresponding description teaches circuit diagrams representing various modes of an amplification circuit 100, in which a signal amplification path and a signal bypass path are arranged in parallel relation between an input 102 and output 104 with respect to forward signal propagation. The reasoning for this arrangement is given in col. 1 lines 25 – 33: Low Noise Amplifiers (LNA) are often used in wireless communications to amplify weak received signals. However, when a strong radio-frequency (RF) signal is being received, an LNA may become unnecessary and can cause unwanted distortion in a receiver. To solve this problem, an LNA is sometimes used with a bypass switch configuration. A bypass mode allows an LNA to be digitally shutdown and simultaneously a bypass switch turned on, allowing a strong signal to go around the amplifier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Pratt switching arrangement to bypass a low noise amplifier, in the system of Ayranci by applying it to each of the low noise amplifiers. Doing so would have allowed to avoid any distortion in the receiver arising from receiving a strong signal by routing it around the amplifier (see Pratt, col. 1 lines 29 – 33).
Therefore, the system of combined Ayranci and Pratt’s disclosures would have met the limitations of claim 1 in the following manner. To help understand mapping, the Examiner also made Sketch 3 below with annotations.
“a set of downconverters (marked in Sketch 3 is such);
a set of passive signal routing paths extending from a first signal splitting node (bank of filters 106) to the set of downconverters via a first set of switching devices (bypass amplifier switches), respectively (“a set of passive signal routing paths” shown in Sketch 3 as solid wide lines extending from the bank of filters 106 representing “a first signal splitting node” all the way to the downconverters through the bypass switches); and
a set of active signal routing paths extending from the first signal splitting node (bank of filters 106) or a second signal splitting node (bank of filters 108) to the set of downconverters via a set of amplifiers, respectively (“a set of active signal routing paths” is shown in Sketch 3 as dashed wide lines extending from the bank of filters 106 representing “a first signal splitting node” all the way to the downconverters through the amplifiers 124, 208 and 212).”
PNG
media_image3.png
899
1517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sketch 3
Regarding claim 15, Ayranci teaches “wherein the set of amplifiers are coupled between the second signal splitting node and the set of downconverters, respectively (As may be seen from Ayranci’s FIG 2A and Sketch 3 above, amplifiers 124, 208 and 212 “are coupled between” the bank of filters 108 (“the second signal splitting node”) “and the set of downconverters” through switches 116, 209 and 210).”
Regarding claim 16, Ayranci in combination with Pratt teaches “further comprising a second set of switching devices coupled in series with the set of amplifiers (in view of Pratt, these are the switches which are connected at the input of each amplifier. Also shown in Sketch 3 above) between the second signal splitting node and the set of downconverters, respectively (since the amplifiers 124, 208 and 212 are coupled between the bank of filters 108 (“the second signal splitting node”) “and the set of downconverters” as explained in the rejection of claim 15 above, the respective switches at the input of amplifiers are also coupled as the claim requires).”
Regarding claim 17, Ayranci in combination with Pratt teaches “further comprising: a first signal routing path including a first switching device extending from an RF signal input to the first signal splitting node (please see Sketch 4 specifically annotated for this claim showing position of the components recited by the claim as well as the path indicated by the wide solid line); and
a second signal routing path including a second switching device extending from the RF signal input to the second signal splitting node (please see Sketch 4 specifically annotated for this claim showing position of the components recited by the claim as well as the path indicated by the wide dashed line).”
PNG
media_image4.png
776
1553
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sketch 4
Regarding claim 18, Ayranci in combination with Pratt teaches or fairly suggests “further comprising a control circuit (Ayranci, col. 13 lines 26 – 30: each of the switches 104, 116, 209, 210 are controlled by a switch control processor 225, state machine or other control system to coordinate the operation of the input switch 104 with the operation of each of the LNA switches 116, 209, 210.) configured, in accordance with a receive mode, to turn on the first switching device, turn on at least two of the first set of switching devices, turn off the second switching device, turn off the second set of switching devices, and turn off the set of amplifiers, and wherein: the first signal routing path is configured to route an RF signal to the first signal splitting node via the first switching device, the first signal splitting node is configured to split the RF signal into at least two RF signal portions, and at least two of the set of passive signal routing paths are configured to route the at least two RF signal portions to at least two of the set of downconverters via the at least two of the first set of switching devices while bypassing at least two of the set of active signal routing paths, respectively (this arrangement is shown in Sketch 5 below showing “at least two RF signal portions” routed as the claim requires).”
PNG
media_image5.png
782
1566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sketch 5
Regarding claim 19, Ayranci teaches or at least fairly suggests “wherein: the RF signal includes a set of signal-modulated carriers situated within a set of frequency bands, respectively (Ayranci, col. 6 lines 61 – 65: FIG. 2A is an illustration of a front end circuit configuration (FECC) 200 of a communications receiver capable of handling several combinations of signals having frequencies within supported frequency ranges, the signals aggregated together in a carrier aggregation (CA) signal. Specific frequencies where the carriers are located are given in col. 3 lines 24 – 29 as well as col. 8 lines 48 – 62); and the at least two of the set of downconverters is configured to frequency downconvert at least two of the set of signal-modulated carriers to at least two of a set of baseband signals, respectively (col. 4 lines 51 – 57: The number of outputs from the output switch matrix 126 will be equal to the maximum number of supported frequency ranges aggregated in the CA signals that the FECC can receive. The signals associated with each supported frequency range 152, 154, 156, 158 (i.e., each output of the filter bank) are sent to dedicated receive chains after being filtered and amplified. Col. 2 lines 62 – 66: the signals in each supported frequency range are filtered, amplified and sent to the associated transceiver. The transceiver typically tunes to the channels within the desired supported frequency range and conducts further downconversion and filtering. Therefore, it is either implicit or it would have been obvious to utilize different downconverters to process different carriers in different frequency ranges.).”
Regarding claim 21, Ayranci teaches or at least fairly suggest “further comprising a third signal routing path including a third switching device coupled between the second signal splitting node and the first signal splitting node (this can be mapped to the switch 209 shown in Ayranci’s FIG 2A as well as in the Sketch 5 above as located between the filter banks 108 and 106 representing “the second signal splitting node and the first signal splitting node”, respectively. “A third signal routing path” would be, for example, the path from either one of the filter banks 108 or 106 to the switch 209).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22 and 23 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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights