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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as anticipated by Levinger (20240213947) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Levinger (20240213947) and HE (8934387).
The reason for this alternative rejection is based on the interpretation of the claim, specifically related to the second digitizer limitations. The broadest interpretation of the second digitizer is that the first and second digitizer are the same item. An alternative interpretation would be that the second digitizer is distinct.
Regarding claim 12, Levinger shows when a first wireless protocol is active (WLAN of Levinger), configuring, via a controller, a unified receiver (100 of Levinger) to provide a downconverted signal to a first path (104a of Levinger) of the unified receiver, the first path comprising a filter (N path filter 105 of Levinger, in addition to figures 5-7) to filter the downconverted signal and a first digitizer (ADC 410 of paragraph 63 in Levinger) to digitize the filtered downconverted signal into a first digital signal; and
when a second wireless protocol is active (BT of Levinger) , configuring, via the controller, the unified receiver(100 of Levinger) to provide the downconverted signal to a second path (104b of Levinger) of the unified receiver, the second path comprising a second digitizer to digitize the downconverted signal into a second digital signal. (ADC 410 of paragraph 63 in Levinger). The broadest interpretation of the second digitizer is that the first and second digitizer are the same item.
Alternatively, if the second digitizer interpretation is that the second digitizer is distinct from the first digitizer, He teaches a second separate second digitizer, see figure 5. Different digitizers are often used for different communication protocols because each protocol has unique signal characteristics, bandwidth requirements, and analysis needs. This approach ensures optimal performance and accuracy for each type of data.
Protocol-specific bandwidth: Some protocols (e.g., PCIe 6.0, USB4, DisplayPort 2.1) operate at very high data rates (8–12 Gbps or more) and require digitizers with high sample rates (10 GS/s or higher) and low noise to capture eye diagrams and jitter accurately
Signal encoding differences: Protocols like CAN, LIN, I2C, and SPI use different encoding schemes (NRZ, Manchester, 8b/10b, 64b/66b) that require specific decoding and analysis features in the digitizer
Physical layer diversity: Some protocols run over serial lanes (e.g., SATA, SAS, Fibre Channel), while others are parallel (e.g., ARINC 429, MIL-STD-1553). Digitizers must match the physical layer interface to capture and analyze correctly
Compliance and mask testing: Certain protocols (e.g., Ethernet, DisplayPort, HDMI) have strict compliance masks. Specialized digitizers with built-in compliance analysis tools are needed for pass/fail testing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used separate digitizers for the WLAN protocol signals and the BT protocol signals in order to provide the best decoding for each protocol.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,9-11,1320 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levinger (20240213947) in view of HE (8934387).
Regarding claim 1, Levinger shows an LNA 206 and a a mixer to downconvert the RF signal to an intermediate frequency (IF) signal; Filter 600 is a down conversion mixer paragraph 147 (and downconvert an input radio frequency (RF) signal received by the switch of the filtering path; and provide a downconverted signal corresponding to the input RF signal at an input of the capacitor of the filtering path. Levinger also shows a first digitizer coupled to the PGA to digitize the IF signal to a first digitized signal when the RF signal is of a first wireless protocol; (ADC 410).
In an analogous art, He teaches a second separate second digitizer, see figure 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
658
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Different digitizers are often used for different communication protocols because each protocol has unique signal characteristics, bandwidth requirements, and analysis needs. This approach ensures optimal performance and accuracy for each type of data.
Protocol-specific bandwidth: Some protocols (e.g., PCIe 6.0, USB4, DisplayPort 2.1) operate at very high data rates (8–12 Gbps or more) and require digitizers with high sample rates (10 GS/s or higher) and low noise to capture eye diagrams and jitter accurately
Signal encoding differences: Protocols like CAN, LIN, I2C, and SPI use different encoding schemes (NRZ, Manchester, 8b/10b, 64b/66b) that require specific decoding and analysis features in the digitizer
Physical layer diversity: Some protocols run over serial lanes (e.g., SATA, SAS, Fibre Channel), while others are parallel (e.g., ARINC 429, MIL-STD-1553). Digitizers must match the physical layer interface to capture and analyze correctly
Compliance and mask testing: Certain protocols (e.g., Ethernet, DisplayPort, HDMI) have strict compliance masks. Specialized digitizers with built-in compliance analysis tools are needed for pass/fail testing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used separate digitizers for the WLAN protocol signals and the BT protocol signals in order to provide the best decoding for each protocol.
Regarding claim 2, He teaches direct the IF signal to the second digitizer via the second path when the second wireless protocol is active. HE col. 1 lines 25-42
WLAN and BT, however, differ in that BT is a relatively simple system intended for short ranges in applications that do not require high reliability. WLAN, on the other hand, is more complex and generally more expensive to implement and is intended for larger distances. WLAN involves relatively complex modulation and the energy of the WLAN signal is spread over a wider frequency range of about 22 MHz. The more complex modulation and higher code rate used by WLAN help ensure that WLAN transmissions can be received. A wideband receiver RF front end is therefore required to receive the 22 MHz wide WLAN signals. More complex, and therefore power consuming, demodulation circuitry is also required for WLAN radios. BT, on the other hand, involves relatively simple modulation. The energy of the BT signal is generally confined to a narrower 1 MHz frequency range so a relatively narrow band receiver RF front end can be used. For numerous reasons, WLAN radios generally consume more power than BT radios.
Regarding claim 3, HE figure 5 shows the filter prior to the PGA 219, but moving to after is a simple rearrangement of parts that here wouldn't affect the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 4, He figure 5 shows the second path comprises a direct path between the PGA and the second digitizer.
PNG
media_image2.png
72
202
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, because the second power consumption level lower than the first power consumption level due to protocols being communicated at different times, it is an inherent relationship in He that the devices will consume different power and one will be larger than the other.
Regarding claim 6, He teaches the first digitizer comprises a wide-band analog-to-digital converter (ADC); and the second digitizer comprises a narrow-band ADC. HE col. 10 lines 35-45.
BT receiver RF front end 201 has a bandwidth that is appropriate for receiving BT signals and may be too narrowband to be used to receive a WLAN signal such that the WLAN signal can then be successfully demodulated. The receive bandwidth generally is substantially less than 20 MHz and in the present example is about 1 MHz. The BT receiver FR front end 201, however, is usable to detect WLAN energy as described in further detail below.
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 17, case law tells us that is obvious to remove a feature or element if the remaining elements continue to perform their intended function. In re Larson, 340 F.3d 1347, 67 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Supports obviousness where a claimed feature is omitted and the remaining elements continue to perform their intended functions, particularly when the omitted feature is not required for the resulting combination. Thus it would have been obvious to have disabled the some of the circuits in He when the other protocol is being use because the remaining elements would still function and the overall power consumed by the device would be reduced.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 11, 13, 14, 15, He figure 5 uses different paths for BT vs. WLAN signal demodulation, there is inherently "mode information" in order to route the BT signals through their appropriate path. Figure 5 includes different ADC for BT and WLAN reception.
Regarding claim 18, He, and Levinger show the elements as follows. an antenna to transmit a transmit radio frequency (RF) signal and to receive a receive RF signal; and (HE 145)
an integrated circuit (IC) coupled to the antenna, the IC comprising: (HE 146)
a low noise amplifier (LNA) to receive and amplify the receive RF signal; (HE 209)
a mixer to downconvert the receive RF signal to a second frequency signal; (HE 210,211)
an amplifier coupled to the mixer to amplify the second frequency signal; (HE 204)
a first path comprising a filter to filter the second frequency signal and a first digitizer coupled to the filter to digitize the filtered second frequency signal to a first digitized signal; Levinger (20240213947) WLAN
a second path comprising a second digitizer to digitize the second frequency signal to a second digitized signal; HE BT
a first demodulator coupled to the first path to demodulate the first digitized signal; HE ADC 164 and MODEM 165
a second demodulator coupled to the second path to demodulate the second digitized signal; and HE ADC 177 and MODEM 178
a controller to direct the second frequency signal to the first path when a first wireless protocol is active and to direct the second frequency signal to the second path when a second wireless protocol is active. HE Switch 162
Regarding claims 19 and 20, case law tells us that is obvious to remove a feature or element if the remaining elements continue to perform their intended function. In re Larson, 340 F.3d 1347, 67 USPQ2d 1673 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Supports obviousness where a claimed feature is omitted and the remaining elements continue to perform their intended functions, particularly when the omitted feature is not required for the resulting combination. Thus it would have been obvious to have disabled the some of the circuits in He when the other protocol is being use because the remaining elements would still function and the overall power consumed by the device would be reduced.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3059. The examiner can normally be reached m,t,tr 6-4; w,f 6-noon.
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.
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.
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights