DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in CN 202311148800.3 on 09/06/2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limiting term “back-to-back mode”. No support for this limitation can be found or implied by the instant specification. This term involves some type of mode that requires further information.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites “wherein a first tap of the first inductor faces towards a second tap of the second inductor, or a first tap of the first inductor and a second tap of the second inductor are arranged in a back-to-back mode”. It is unclear how a tap can be facing another tap and also be in a back-to-back mode. The examiner has interpreted the limitation as “wherein the first inductor and the second inductor are arranged symmetrically”.
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)(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 1-11, 15-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mostafa (US 20130165058).
Regarding Claim 1, Mostafa discloses the following limitations:
A matching network of a radio frequency signal, (Mostafa - [0020] Each of the multiple RF paths in a conventional multi-band RF transmitter often includes a narrow band impedance matching network that is designed to provide impedance matching between components for the particular narrow band of interest.)
comprising a first inductor, a second inductor, and (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049] inductor L2 410 is added (shown as elements 410a and 410b in FIG. 4A))
a third inductor inductively coupled to both the first inductor and the second inductor, (Mostafa - [Fig. 4A], [0049] is mutually coupled 414 to inductor L1 408.)
PNG
media_image1.png
493
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the third inductor has an output terminal; (Mostafa - [Fig. 4A], [0051] Nodes 420, 422, 424, and 426 shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B represent ports at which circuitry of broadband matching module 300 couples to the inductor network formed by inductor L1 408 and inductor L2 410.)
an input terminal of the first inductor is configured to receive a signal of an I channel, and an input terminal of the second inductor is configured to receive a signal of a Q channel. (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [Fig. 4A], [0049], [0047] I/Q modulator 106 is coupled to inductor L2 410.)
PNG
media_image2.png
399
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein the first inductor and the second inductor are arranged symmetrically. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 3, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein the input terminal of the first inductor and the input terminal of the second inductor are symmetrically arranged at opposite positions of a symmetry axis of the first inductor and the second inductor. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 4, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein the first inductor and the second inductor are both symmetrical structures. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 5, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein an orthographic projection of the first inductor partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of the second inductor. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 6, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein the third inductor is a symmetrical structure. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 7, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein a symmetry axis of the third inductor is parallel to or coincides with a symmetry axis of the first inductor and the second inductor. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 8, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein the input terminal of the first inductor and the input terminal of the second inductor are arranged orthogonally to the output terminal of the third inductor, respectively. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 9, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein a shape of the first inductor is identical with a shape of the second inductor. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 10, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein an envelope shape of the first inductor and the second inductor is a regular polygon, rectangle, or circular shape. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 11, Mostafa further discloses:
wherein the third inductor is located between the first inductor and the second inductor, or inside an envelope of the first inductor and the second inductor, or outside an envelope of the first inductor and the second inductor. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 14, Mostafa further teaches:
wherein a first tap of the first inductor faces towards a second tap of the second inductor, or a first tap of the first inductor and a second tap of the second inductor are arranged in a back-to-back mode. (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049])
Regarding Claim 15, Mostafa further discloses:
A mixer, comprising an I mixer, a Q mixer, and the matching network of the radio frequency signal as claimed in claim 1, (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0024] FIG. 1A is a block diagram of conventional transmitter circuitry 100 coupled to an antenna 114. Transmitter 100 in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) inputs 101 that are filtered by respective low pass filters (LPF's) 104. Transmitter 100 also includes an I/Q modulator 106 (e.g., a pair of quadrature mixers 106a and 106b) supplied with a reference signal from local oscillator (LO) 103 for performing up-conversion of the input signals 101. The output of I/Q modulator 106 is summed at the input of narrow- band impedance matching network 107, which includes one or more narrow-band inductors.)
wherein the I mixer is connected to the first inductor of the matching network, and (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0024])
the Q mixer is connected to the second inductor of the matching network. (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0024])
Regarding Claim 16, Mostafa further discloses:
A phase shifter, comprising an I phase shifter, a Q phase shifter, and the matching network as claimed in claim 1, (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0024], [0030] the feedback loop includes sensing receiver 202, narrow band matching network 203, IQ modulator 204, and phase shifter 206, [0033] Phase adjustment module 206 adjusts the phase of the LO signal sent from LO 103 so that the same LO 103 can be used for I/Q modulator 106 and I/Q demodulator 204.)
wherein the I phase shifter is connected to the first inductor of the matching network, and (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0024], [0030], [0033])
the Q phase shifter is connected to the second inductor of the matching network. (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0024], [0030], [0033])
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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostafa (US 20130165058) in view of Moody (US 12438506).
Regarding Claim 12, Mostafa further teaches:
wherein the first inductor is further provided (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049] Mostafa does not explicitly teach “with a first tap for connecting a bias power supply”, or “common mode”.)
Mostafa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Moody, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
with a first tap for connecting a bias power supply (Moody – [col. 14 ln. 48-51] Specifically, the center-tapped secondaries in the triple transformer conduct bias current, and capacitive feedforward enables g.sub.m boosting. [col. 14 ln. 48-51] The transconductor drives the switching devices with enhanced gain due to the use of a shunt inductor which resonates with the parasitic capacitance at the transconductance switching quad interface. The resonating inductor is center tapped such that additional current can be sourced into the transconductor cell, improving its transconductance. The current source is used to correct for amplitude mismatch between the I and Q paths improving image rejection.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the power supply of Mostafa with the center-tapped secondaries in the triple transformer conduct bias current of Moody in order to correct for amplitude mismatch between the I and Q paths improving image rejection (Moody – [col. 14 ln. 48-51]).
Mostafa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Moody, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
common mode (Moody – [col. 17 ln. 35-39] The IQ low noise baseband amplifiers are based on the same core CCR common source amplifier used in the RF LNA 1110. The output is biased through a common mode feedback loop to maximize linearity by setting V.sub.DS=V.sub.DD/2, enabling maximum swing on both devices.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the amplification of Mostafa with the common mode feedback loop of Moody in order to maximize linearity (Moody – [col. 17 ln. 35-39]).
Regarding Claim 13, Mostafa further teaches:
wherein the second inductor is further provided (Mostafa – [Fig. 4A], [0049] Mostafa does not explicitly teach “with a second tap for connecting a bias power supply”, or “common mode”.)
Mostafa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Moody, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
with a second tap for connecting a bias power supply (Moody – [col. 14 ln. 48-51], [col. 14 ln. 48-51])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the power supply of Mostafa with the center-tapped secondaries in the triple transformer conduct bias current of Moody in order to correct for amplitude mismatch between the I and Q paths improving image rejection (Moody – [col. 14 ln. 48-51]).
Mostafa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Moody, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
common mode (Moody – [col. 17 ln. 35-39])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the amplification of Mostafa with the common mode feedback loop of Moody in order to maximize linearity (Moody – [col. 17 ln. 35-39]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostafa (US 20130165058) in view of Imai (US 20170126223).
Regarding Claim 17, Mostafa further teaches:
A radar sensor, comprising the mixer of claim 15. (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0024] Mostafa does not explicitly teach “radar”.)
Mostafa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Imai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
radar (Imai – [Fig. 1], [Fig. 10], [0042] FIG. 1 is a circuit diagram illustrating a semiconductor device according to a first embodiment of the present invention. A transistor Q1 is a depletion-type FET intended to obtain amplification operation. A source terminal of the transistor Q1 is grounded. An input matching circuit for circuit matching is connected to an input terminal IN. [0063] In high frequency amplifiers used for radar or the like,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching network of Mostafa with the radar utilizing a matching network of Moody in order to implement low power consumption for a radar system (Imai – [col. 17 ln. 35-39]).
Regarding Claim 18, Mostafa further teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the radar sensor of claim 17. (Mostafa - [0020] Mostafa does not explicitly teach “radar”.)
Mostafa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Imai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
radar (Imai – [Fig. 1], [Fig. 10], [0042], [0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching network of Mostafa with the radar utilizing a matching network of Moody in order to implement low power consumption for a radar system (Imai – [col. 17 ln. 35-39]).
Regarding Claim 19, Mostafa further teaches:
A radar sensor, comprising the phase shifter of claim 16. (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0024], [0030], [0033] Mostafa does not explicitly teach “radar”.)
Mostafa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Imai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
radar (Imai – [Fig. 1], [Fig. 10], [0042], [0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching network of Mostafa with the radar utilizing a matching network of Moody in order to implement low power consumption for a radar system (Imai – [col. 17 ln. 35-39]).
Regarding Claim 20, Mostafa further teaches:
An electronic apparatus, comprising the radar sensor of claim 19. (Mostafa – [Fig. 3D], [0020], [0024], [0030], [0033] Mostafa does not explicitly teach “radar”.)
Mostafa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Imai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
radar (Imai – [Fig. 1], [Fig. 10], [0042], [0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the matching network of Mostafa with the radar utilizing a matching network of Moody in order to implement low power consumption for a radar system (Imai – [col. 17 ln. 35-39]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Bhattacharya (US 11342920) teaches a transformer inductively couples a quadrature-phase component and an in-phase component of a clock signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
