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 § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Khlat (US 2022/0255513)
Regarding claim 1, Khlat discloses an average power tracking module [fig. 2] comprising: a first output terminal [output terminal 28A] and a second output terminal [output terminal 28B]; a converter circuit [28A/28B] configured to output a first voltage [VCCA] to the first output terminal and the second output terminal [par. 0042]; a first feedback terminal [output 28A terminal to 34] connected to a path between a first power amplifier [26] and the first output terminal; a second feedback terminal [output 28B terminal to 34] connected to a path between a second power amplifier [24] and the second output terminal; and a control circuit [34] connected to the first feedback terminal, the second feedback terminal, and the converter circuit.
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 2-3 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khlat in view of Tahara et al. (US 2024/0162860 and Tahara hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Khlat discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Khlat does not explicitly disclose a first switch connected between the converter circuit and the first output terminal; and a second switch connected between the converter circuit and the second output terminal.
However, Tahara discloses first switch [5222 in 522, fig. 2] connected between converter circuit [521] and first output terminal [output terminal 5221 connected to 5222]; and a second switch [5223 in 522, fig. 2] connected between the converter circuit and second output terminal [output terminal 5221 connected to 5222]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khlat to include switches as taught in Tahara in order to select supply voltage to the output of power amplifier.
Regarding claim 3, Khlat in view of Tahara discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Khlat in view of Tahara does not explicitly disclose wherein the first switch and the second switch are configured to conduct simultaneously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tahara to include simultaneous switching conduction to obtain a desired output voltage, simultaneous conduction can be selected accordingly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Khlat discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Khlat does not explicitly disclose a communication device comprising: a signal processing circuit configured to process a radio frequency signal; the average power tracking module according to Claim 1, and that is configured to transmit the radio frequency signal between the signal processing circuit and an antenna; a first amplifying module between the average power tracking module and the antenna and that includes the first power amplifier; a second amplifying module between the average power tracking module and the antenna and that includes the second power amplifier; and a mother board on which the signal processing circuit, the average power tracking module, the first amplifying module, and the second amplifying module are disposed, wherein, in a plan view of a main surface of the mother board, the average power tracking module is disposed between the first amplifying module and the second amplifying module.
However, Tahara discloses a communication device [6, fig. 1] comprising: a signal processing circuit [3] configured to process a radio frequency signal [ (RF) signal]; the average power tracking module [5] according to Claim 1, and that is configured to transmit the radio frequency signal between the signal processing circuit and an antenna [2]; a first amplifying module [12] between the average power tracking module [5] and the antenna and that includes the first power amplifier; a second amplifying module [13] between the average power tracking module and the antenna and that includes the second power amplifier; and a mother board [par. IC] on which the signal processing circuit, the average power tracking module, the first amplifying module, and the second amplifying module are disposed, wherein, in a plan view of a main surface [par. 0036] of the mother board, the average power tracking module is disposed between the first amplifying module and the second amplifying module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate a communication device as taught in Tahara in order to utilize known communication device.
Regarding claim 15, Khlat in view of Tahara discloses all the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above. Khlat in view of Tahara further discloses the first power amplifier is a primary amplifier, wherein the second power amplifier is a secondary amplifier. Khlat in view of Tahara does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of a wiring line connecting the first amplifying module and the average power tracking module is shorter than a length of a wiring line connecting the second amplifying module and the average power tracking module. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to shorten the length of a wiring line, since such a range, absent any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routing skill in the art, In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, Khlat in view of Tahara discloses all the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above. Khlat in view of Tahara does not explicitly disclose wherein a wiring line connecting the first output terminal and the first amplifying module is thicker than a wiring line connecting the first feedback terminal and the first amplifying module, and wherein a wiring line connecting the second output terminal and the second amplifying module is thicker than a wiring line connecting the second feedback terminal and the second amplifying module. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated size ofa wiring line, since such a range, absent any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routing skill in the art, In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khlat in view of Tahara et al. further in view of Hanaoka (US 2023/0092914).
Regarding claim 13, Khlat in view of Tahara discloses all the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above. Khlat in view of Tahara does not explicitly disclose a module laminate having a first main surface and a second main surface that oppose each other, wherein the converter circuit, the control circuit, the first switch, and the second switch are disposed on the first main surface, and wherein, in a plan view of the first main surface, the control circuit is disposed between the first switch and the second switch.
However, Hanaoka discloses a module laminate [par. 0018-0019] having a first main surface [91, fig. 3, par. 0020] and a second main surface [92] that oppose each other, wherein the converter circuit, the control circuit, the first switch, and the second switch are disposed on the first main surface, and wherein, in a plan view of the first main surface, the control circuit is disposed between the first switch and the second switch [fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khlat in view of Tahara to include a module laminate as taught in Hanaoka in order to arranged on a common mount with the first main surface and second main surface, in order to have a one-piece, compact construction.
Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khlat in view of Astrom et al. (US 2016/0261295 and Astrom hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Khlat discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Khlat further discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to cause a higher one of a first power supply voltage [VSUPA, fig. 2] and a second power supply voltage [VSUPB] to be output as the first voltage from the converter circuit at a predetermined time. Khlat does not explicitly disclose the first power supply voltage being supplied at the predetermined time based on output power of the first power amplifier, and the second power supply voltage being supplied at the predetermined time based on output power of the second power amplifier.
However, Astrom discloses [see fig. 3] a voltage [142] of a power supply voltage [122] supplied based on output power of power amplifier [108] at the predetermined time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khlat to include feedback signal from power amplifier in order to provide adjusted supply voltage based on the output of power amplifier. Khlat in view of Astrom does not explicitly disclose second power amplifier. However, Astrom discloses generating multiple supply voltages and selecting based on amplifier output, applying the same control logic to a second amplifier would have been a predictable design choice and an obvious duplication of known functionality.
Regarding claim 7, Khlat in view of Astrom discloses decreasing the first voltage wherein the control circuit is configured to decrease the first voltage when [par. 0055-0056]: output power of a radio frequency signal output from the first power amplifier or output power of a radio frequency signal output from the second power amplifier. Khlat in view of Astrom does not explicitly disclose exceeds a fourth or a fifth threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khlat /Astrom by implementing the adjustment using a threshold comparison is a routing and predictable design choice in power supply control circuit.
Regarding claim 8, Khlat in view of Astrom discloses [see fig. 3] a third feedback terminal connected to a signal output port of the first power amplifier; and a fourth feedback terminal connected to a signal output port of the second power amplifier, wherein the control circuit is configured to decrease the first voltage when a power value detected at the third feedback terminal, or a power value detected at the fourth feedback terminal. Khlat in view of Astrom does not explicitly disclose exceeds a fourth or a fifth threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khlat /Astrom by implementing the adjustment using a threshold comparison is a routing and predictable design choice in power supply control circuit.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khlat in view of Hanaoka.
Regarding claim 9, Khlat discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Khlat does not explicitly disclose a module laminate having a first main surface and a second main surface that oppose each other, wherein the converter circuit and the control circuit are disposed on the first main surface, and wherein the first output terminal, the second output terminal, the first feedback terminal, and the second feedback terminal are disposed on the second main surface.
However, Hanaoka. discloses a module laminate [par. 0018-0019] having a first main surface [91, par. 0020] and a second main surface [92] that oppose each other, wherein the converter circuit [107] and the control circuit are disposed on the first main surface [figs. 2-6], and wherein the first output terminal, the second output terminal, the first feedback terminal, and the second feedback terminal are disposed on the second main surface [figs. 2-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khlat to include a module laminate as taught in Hanaoka in order to arranged on a common mount with the first main surface and second main surface, in order to have a one-piece, compact construction.
Regarding claim 10, Khlat in view of Hanaoka discloses [see fig. 2] wherein the converter circuit and the control circuit are included in a semiconductor IC [par. 0058].
Regarding claim 11, Khlat in view of Hanaoka discloses [see figs. 2 -6] wherein in a plan view of the second main surface: the first output terminal and the first feedback terminal are adjacent to each other, and the second output terminal and the second feedback terminal are adjacent to each other.
Regarding claim 12, Khlat in view of Hanaoka discloses [see fig. 2], wherein, in a plan view of the second main surface, a control terminal configured to input and output a digital control signal is disposed between the first feedback terminal and the second feedback terminal.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara.
Regarding claim 17, Tahara discloses an average power tracking circuit [fig. 2] comprising: a converter circuit [521] configured to output a first voltage [V1]; a first switch [S5222, fig. 2] disposed on a first path between the converter circuit and a first power amplifier [12, fig. 1] and configured to supply the first voltage to the first power amplifier; and a second switch [5223, fig. 2] disposed on a second path between the converter circuit and a second power amplifier [13, fig. 1] and configured to supply the first voltage to the second power amplifier. Tahara does not explicitly disclose wherein the first switch and the second switch are configured to conduct simultaneously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tahara to include simultaneous switching conduction to obtain a desired output voltage, simultaneous conduction can be selected accordingly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara in view of Astrom et al.
Regarding claim 18, Tahara disclose a method for supplying a power supply voltage [5, fig. 1] to a first power amplifier [12] and a second power amplifier [13] that are configured to simultaneously send respective radio frequency signals, the method comprising: selecting, as a first voltage [V1]; and supplying the selected first voltage to both of the first power amplifier and the second power amplifier. Tahara does not explicitly disclose a higher voltage of a first power supply voltage based on output power of the first power amplifier and a second power supply voltage based on output power of the second power amplifier.
However, Astrom discloses [see fig. 3] a voltage [142] of a power supply voltage [122] based on output power of power amplifier [108]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tahara to include feedback signal from power amplifier in order to provide adjusted supply voltage based on the output of power amplifier. Tahara, in view of Astrom does not explicitly disclose second power amplifier. However, Astrom discloses generating multiple supply voltages and selecting based on amplifier output, applying the same control logic to a second amplifier would have been a predictable design choice and an obvious duplication of known functionality.
Regarding claim 20, Tahara in view of Astrom disclose decreasing the first voltage [par. 0055-0056] when: output power of one of the radio frequency signals that is output from the first power amplifier, or output power of one of the radio frequency signals that is output from the second power amplifier. Kogure in view of Astrom does not explicitly disclose exceeds a fourth or a fifth threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kogure/Astrom by implementing the adjustment using a threshold comparison is a routing and predictable design choice in power supply control circuit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to METASEBIA T RETEBO whose telephone number is (571)272-9299. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/METASEBIA T RETEBO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights