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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “700” (Paragraph 39, line 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: On Paragraph 17, replace “Figure 10 is block diagram” with “Figure 10 is a block diagram”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the protection feedback loop” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the limitation to “the feedback protection loop” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes. Claims 2-11 are likewise rejected under this logic by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a second threshold" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the limitation to “the second threshold” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes. Claims 13-20 are likewise rejected under this logic by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “first clamp” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the limitation to “the first clamp” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes. Claims 13-20 are likewise rejected under this logic by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the first and second threshold” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the limitation to “the first threshold and the second threshold” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,580,526 in view of McElwee (Patent Publication Number US 2011/0086594 A1), hereafter referred to as McElwee.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the patent recites most of the limitations recited in claim 1 of the present application. However, the present application additionally recites “A wireless communication device comprising: a transceiver comprising a baseband processor (BBP) and a power amplifier system”.
However, McElwee teaches [a] wireless communication device (McElwee, Fig. 8, 500) comprising: a transceiver (Fig. 8, 540) comprising a baseband processor (BBP) (Fig. 8, 530) and a power amplifier system (Fig. 8, 550).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified claim 1 of the patent to incorporate the teachings of McElwee to incorporate the power amplifier of the patent in a wireless communication device, which would have the effect of enabling the usage of the power amplifier of the patent for common real-world circumstances (McElwee, Paragraph 40, lines 1-9). Therefore, claim 1 of the patent meets claim 1 of the present application under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 2-11, claims 2-11 of the patent recite identical limitations to those recited in claims 2-11 of the present application, except for the feature of claim 1 addressed above. Therefore, claims 2-11 of the patent meet claims 2-11 of the present application under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of the patent recites limitations similar to the limitations recited in claim 12 of the present application. However, the present application additionally recites “receiving a signal to be amplified at an input node”. See detailed mapping of claim limitations below:
Present Application (#19/279,204)
Patent (No. 12,580,526)
Claim 12. A method for controlling a power amplifier stage, comprising:
Claim 1. A power amplifier system comprising:
biasing the power amplifier stage coupled to the input node with a bias circuit;
a bias circuit coupled to the power amplifier stage and configured to provide a bias signal to the power amplifier stage;
clamping the input node to a voltage level based on a first threshold with a first clamp;
a second clamp coupled to the input node of the power amplifier stage, the second clamp configured to limit a second voltage level based on a third threshold;
clamping an output node of the power amplifier stage to a second voltage level with a second clamp based on a third threshold;
a first clamp coupled to the output node of the power amplifier stage, the first clamp configured to limit a voltage level based on a first threshold;
detecting an operating condition above a second threshold;
and a protection feedback loop coupled to the bias circuit and configured to detect an operating condition above a second threshold
responsive to detecting an operating condition above a second threshold, sending a feedback signal to the bias circuit;
and send a signal to the bias circuit,
responsive to receiving the feedback signal, debiasing the power amplifier stage by either: lowering the second voltage level below the third threshold, or lowering a current level at the input node;
wherein the bias circuit is configured, responsive to the signal, to debias the power amplifier stage by either: lowering the second voltage level below the third threshold or lowering a current level at the input node of the power amplifier stage;
and throttling voltage levels with first clamp and the second clamp faster than the feedback signal causes debiasing of the power amplifier stage.
and wherein the first clamp and the second clamp throttle voltage levels for the power amplifier stage faster than the protection feedback loop.
However, McElwee teaches receiving a signal to be amplified at an input node (McElwee, Fig. 8, consider signal at the input of power amplifier 550).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified claim 1 of the patent to incorporate the teachings of McElwee to include an input signal for the power amplifier of the patent, which would have the effect of enabling the usage of the power amplifier of the patent for common real-world circumstances (McElwee, Paragraph 40, lines 1-9). Therefore, claim 1 of the patent meets claim 12 of the present application under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 13-20, claims 2-8, and 11 of the patent recite limitations similar to those recited in claims 13-20 of the present application, except for the feature of claim 12 addressed above. Therefore, claims 2-8, and 11 of the patent meet claims 13-20 of the present application under an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. See detailed mapping of claim limitations below:
Present Application (#19/279,204)
Patent (No. 12,580,526)
13. The method of claim 12, wherein clamping with the first clamp comprises clamping with a plurality of stacked diodes.
2. The power amplifier system of claim 1, wherein the first clamp comprises a plurality of stacked diodes.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein the second threshold is lower than the first threshold.
3. The power amplifier system of claim 1, wherein . . . the second threshold is lower than the first threshold.
15. The method of claim 12, further comprising turning off the first clamp when the feedback signal beings causing debiasing of the power amplifier stage.
4. The power amplifier system of claim 1, wherein the first clamp is configured to turn off when the protection feedback loop begins reducing power within the power amplifier stage.
16. The method of claim 12, wherein detecting the operating condition comprises detecting an overvoltage condition.
5. The power amplifier system of claim 1, wherein the protection feedback loop comprises an overvoltage protection feedback loop.
17. The method of claim 12, wherein detecting the operating condition comprises detecting an overcurrent condition.
6. The power amplifier system of claim 1, wherein the protection feedback loop comprises an overcurrent protection feedback loop.
18. The method of claim 12, wherein detecting the operating condition comprises detecting an overtemperature condition.
7. The power amplifier system of claim 1, wherein the protection feedback loop comprises an overtemperature protection feedback loop.
19. The method of claim 12, wherein detecting the operating condition comprises detecting an overpower condition.
8. The power amplifier system of claim 1, wherein the protection feedback loop comprises an overpower protection feedback loop.
20. The method of claim 12, further comprising programming the first and second threshold dynamically.
11. The power amplifier system of claim 1, wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are configured to be programmed dynamically.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, when taken alone, or in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the applicant.
The closest prior arts are Tsutsui et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2022/0200542 A1), hereafter referred to as Tsutsui, and Lübbers et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2020/0099457 A1), hereafter referred to as Lübbers. Tsutsui discloses a power amplifier with input and output clamps. Lübbers discloses a power amplifier with a feedback protection loop. However, the combination of Tsutsui with Lübbers is non-obvious because the clamps of Tsutsui are controlled externally, so they cannot be considered to be fast-acting as required by independent claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ringer et al. (Patent Publication Number WO 9531035 A1), as cited by applicant, discloses (Fig. 3) a power amplifier system with overtemperature protection.
Ligtao et al. “Implementation of On-chip OVP, OCP and OTP Circuits for DC-DC Converter Design”, as cited by applicant, discloses (Fig. 2) overvoltage, overcurrent, and overtemperature feedback protection loops.
Peng et al. (Patent Publication Number CN 113,746,440 A), as cited by applicant, discloses (Figs. 1-2) overvoltage and overcurrent feedback protection loops for a multistage amplifier.
Sasaki et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2020/0335491 A1), as cited by applicant, discloses (Fig. 1A) an output clamp formed by a diode stack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance T Bartol whose telephone number is (703)756-1267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. CT, Alternating Fridays 6:30 - 3:00.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/LANCE TORBJORN BARTOL/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights