`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMlVIERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMlVIISSlONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 223134450
`WWW.uspto.gov
`
`13/590,423
`
`08/21/2012
`
`Aleksandzu‘ Modrag Tasic
`
`121973
`
`9482
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
`
`SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
`
`TRAN, KHANH C
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2631
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/26/2014
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`us-docketing@qualcomm.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`- i -
`
`INTEL 1018
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`13/590,423
`Office Action Summary Examiner
`
`KHANH C. TRAN
`
`Applicant(s)
`TASIC ET AL.
`
`
`
`Status
`
`2631 I AIA (First Inventor to File)
`
`Art Unit
`No
`address -­
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication
`appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE� MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Failure to reply within the set or ex1ended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduoe any
`
`
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`
`
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`1)[gl Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/30/2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) was/were filed on __ . under 37 CFR 1.130(b)
`
`2a)[gl This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)0 This action is non-final.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__ ; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4)0 Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`Ex parte Quayle,
`
`3)0 An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)[gl Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) __ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`6)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`
`
`?)[gl Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 19is/are rejected.
`
`
`
`8)[gl Claim(s) 2-10, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 is/are objected to.
`
`
`
`
`
`9)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at a* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://\w,rw.usoto.qov/patents/init events/pph/index.isp
`
`or send an inquiry to PPHteedback(rouspto.aov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`
`11 )0 The drawing(s) filed on __ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`or (f).12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`
`
`
`
`Certified copies:
`a)O All b)O Some** c)O None of the:
`1.0
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __ .
`2.0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`3.0
`
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)0 Notice of References Cited (PT0-892)
`
`Summary (PT0-413)
`3)0 Interview
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __ .
`(PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b) 2)[gl Information Disclosure Statement(s)
`4) 0 Other: __ .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date __ .
`
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary - 1 -
`
`
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20141220
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`2. The Amendment filed on 10/30/2014 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are still
`
`pending in this Office action.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3. Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2014 have been fully considered but they
`
`are not persuasive for the following reasons:
`
`In reSQonse to AQQ/icants’ arguments on page 7 that Regarding independent claims
`
`1 and 17, Applicant's independent claims 1 and 17 recite, inter alia, "[a first amplifier stage configured to
`
`amplify/amplifying
`
`with a first amplifier stage]
`
`when the first amplifier stage is enabled and [a
`
`second amplifierr stage configured to
`
`amplify/amplifying with a second amplifier stage]
`
`when the
`
`second amplifier stage is enabled, "which is not disclosed in Kaukovuori”.”
`
`The Examiner’s resgonse is that Kaukovuori FIG. 15 embodiment discloses that
`
`RF|C1 amplifier and RFICZ amplifier both are inherently enabled {Emphasis Added}
`
`(see further in column 10 lines 22-46).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`In response to Applicants’ arguments on page 8 that Kaukovuori discloses: one
`
`potential method of receiving non-contiguous carrier aggregation signals is to receive
`
`separate clusters of component carriers in separate receiver chains, each having a LO
`
`signal of its own. This is depicted in FIG. 15, where Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 are each
`
`handled by a separate respective receiver chain, as shown in FIG. 15. (Kaukovuori,
`
`col.10, Ins. 23-28; emphasis added).
`
`The Examiner’s response is that Kaukovuori FIG. 15 embodiment, indeed,
`
`teaches method of receiving non-contiguous carrier aggregation signals is to receive
`
`separate clusters of component carriers in separate receiver chains, each having a LO
`
`signal of its own. FIG. 15 discloses a Radio Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC1) 1
`
`including a first amplifier stage LNA, corresponding to the claimed first amplifier stage,
`
`to provide a first output RF signal (corresponding to the claimed first output RF signal, to
`
`a digital data path (corresponding to the claimed first load circuit). Furthermore, FIG. 15
`
`discloses a Radio Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC2) 2 including a second amplifier
`
`stage LNA, corresponding to the claimed second amplifier stage, to provide a second
`
`output RF signal (corresponding to the claimed second output RF signal, to a different
`
`digital data path (corresponding to the claimed second load circuit). In column 10 lines
`
`22-30, each separate received cluster (e.g. clusters 1 and 2) includes component
`
`carries that correspond to the claimed at least a first carrier of the multiple carrier and to
`
`the claimed at least a second carrier of the multiple carrier.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`In response to Applicants’ arguments on page 8 that When the clusters have unequal
`
`bandwidths, the choice of bandwidth (BW) setups for both receiver chains may be performed in order to
`
`reconfigure the receiver such that receiver performance is optimal. Typically, the first branch may be
`
`configured in a first mode to have a first bandpass filter bandwidth to give first bandpass filtered inphase
`
`and quadrature components, and may be configured in a second mode to have a first lowpass
`
`filter bandwidth to give first lowpass filtered inphase and quadrature components. In the first mode, a
`
`second branch may be configured, for example as shown in FIG. 24 within the dashed lines, and for
`
`example as shown in FIG. 10 or FIG. 11, to have a second bandpass filter bandwidth, different from the
`
`first bandpass filter bandwidth, to give second bandpass filtered inphase and quadrature components. In
`
`the second mode, the first branch may be used as a conventional DCR receiver, for example to receive
`
`single carrier or contiguous carrier signals, and the second branch, also referred to as an
`
`additional branch, may be not used, for example by being disconnected or turned off. (Kaukovuori, col.
`
`13, Ins. 28-46; emphasis added).
`
`The Examiner’s response is that, as recited in last Office action, Kaukovuori FIG.
`
`15 embodimentthe two clusters are each received with different bandwidth filter (see
`
`column 10, lines 22-53). Kaukovuori foregoing disclosure teaches the claimed features
`
`“at least a first carrier of the multiple carrier and to the claimed at least a second carrier
`
`of the multiple carrier”. Applicants' arguments using FIG. 10 FIG. 11 and FIG. 24 are
`
`irrelevant since those figures represent different embodiments, which the current
`
`rejection is not relied on, in Kaukovuori teachings.
`
`In response to Applicants’ arguments on page 9 that
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obviousness Rejections NOTE: The rejection of claim 19 in the Office
`
`Action appears to contain a typographical error. Specifically, the Office Action rejected claims 1, 11, 12,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on a newly cited reference to Kaukovuori, however, the Office
`
`Action appears, in error, to continue to recite Hirose, cited in the previous office action, in rejecting claim
`
`19. Accordingly, Applicant assumes the Examiner meant to also reject claim 19 based on the newly cited
`
`reference to Kaukovuori.
`
`The Examiner’s response is that the rejection did not contain any typographical
`
`error as argued by Applicants. On the contrary, the rejection recites the correct
`
`Kaukovuori reference for claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) obviousness rejection.
`
`In response to App/icants’ arguments on page 10 that regarding independent claim 19,
`
`Applicant‘s independent claim 19 includes claim elements not taught or suggested in the cited reference.
`
`Applicant‘s independent claim 19 recites, inter alia, ”a first means for amplifying configured to amplify
`
`when the first means for amplifying is enabled
`
`and a second means for amplifying configured to amplify
`
`when the second means for amplifying is enabled. ”Applicant respectfully asserts that Kaukovuori does
`
`not teach or suggest Applicant's invention as presently claimed in independent claim 19.”.
`
`The Examiner’s response is that using the same discussion as recited above and
`
`repeated here, Kaukovuori FIG. 15 embodimentdiscloses that RF|C1 amplifier and
`
`RF|C2 amplifier both are inherently enabled {Emphasis Added} (see further in column
`
`10 lines 22-46).
`
`In response to App/icants’ arguments on pages 10-11 that Finality of Next Office
`
`Action Precluded. Applicant has traversed the rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 19 by argument
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`and not amendment. Therefore, the finality of the next office action would be improper as Applicant
`
`is entitled to an examination on the merits and to amend as a matter of right.
`
`The Examiner’s response is that although Applicants traversed the rejection of
`
`claims 1, 11-12, 14, 17 and 19 by argument and not amendment, however, Applicant's
`
`arguments are not persuasive for the reasons as discussed above. Since the
`
`Examiner maintained the rejection of claims 1, 11-12, 14, 17 and 19 using the
`
`same arguments in the last Office action, this Office action is made final.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AlA 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 —
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section
`122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or
`(2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before
`the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under
`the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an
`application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United
`States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`4. Claims 1, 11-12, 14 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
`
`being anticipated by Kaukovuori et al. US. Patent 8,442,473.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Kaukovuori et al. discloses an apparatus (FIG. 15
`
`embodiment) comprising:
`
`a first amplifier stage configured to receive and amplify an input radio frequency
`
`(RF) signal and provide a first output RF signal to a first load circuit when the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`amplifier stage is enabled, the input RF signal employing carrier aggregation comprising
`
`transmissions sent on multiple carriers at different frequencies to a wireless device, the
`
`first output RF signal including at least a first carrier of the multiple carriers (Kaukovuori
`
`et al. teaches a method of receiving data transmitted via a combination of at least a
`
`plurality of radio frequency signals using carrier aggregation (see column 2 lines 44-
`
`49). FIG. 15 discloses a Radio Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC1) 1 including first
`
`amplifier stage LNA to provide a first output RF signal to a digital data path. The two
`
`clusters are each received with different bandwidth filter (see column 10, lines 22—53).
`
`and a second amplifier stage configured to receive and amplify the input RF
`
`signal and provide a second output RF signal to a second load circuit when the second
`
`amplifier stage is enabled, the second output RF signal including at least a second
`
`carrier of the multiple carriers different than the first carrier (similarly, FIG. 15 further
`
`discloses a Radio Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC1) 1
`
`including second amplifier
`
`stage LNA to provide a second output RF signal to a digital data path. The two clusters
`
`are each received with different bandwidth filter (see column 10, lines 22-53)).
`
`Regarding claim 11, Kaukovuori et al. further discloses an input matching circuit
`
`coupled to the first and second amplifier stages and configured to receive a receiver
`
`input signal and provide the input RF signal (FIG. 15 discloses an RF FEM coupled to
`
`the RFIC1 and RFICZ and configured to provide an RF input (see column 10 lines 25-
`
`35).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`Regarding claim 12, Kaukovuori et al. further discloses the input matching circuit
`
`being tunable and comprising at least one adjustable circuit component (FIG. 15
`
`discloses an RF FEM configured to split the RF input signal (see column 10 lines 25-
`
`35).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Kaukovuori et al. further discloses the first amplifier stage
`
`configured to receive and amplify the input RF signal and provide the first output RF
`
`signal to the first load circuit when the first amplifier stage is enabled (as recited in claim
`
`1 rejection, FIG. 15 discloses a Radio Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC1) 1
`
`including
`
`first amplifier stage LNA to provide a first output RF signal to a digital data path. The two
`
`clusters are each received with different bandwidth filter (see column 10, lines 22-53)).
`
`and the second amplifier stage configured to receive and amplify the input RF
`
`signal and provide the second output RF signal to the second load circuit when the
`
`second amplifier stage is enabled (similarly, FIG. 15 further discloses a Radio
`
`Frequency Integrated Circuit (RFIC1) 1
`
`including second amplifier stage LNA to provide
`
`a second output RF signal to a digital data path. The two clusters are each received
`
`with different bandwidth filter (see column 10, lines 22-53))
`
`M3 the rejection is based on the input RF signal (not a second input RF
`
`signal).
`
`Regarding claim 17, claim is rejected on the same ground as for claim 1 because
`
`of similar scope.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`5. Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Kaukovuori et al. U.S. Patent 8,442,473.
`
`Regarding claim 19, claim is rejected on the same ground as for claim 1 because
`
`of similar scope. However, Kaukovuori et al. does not expressly disclose the first means
`
`for amplifying and the second means for amplifying as set forth in the application claim.
`
`Nevertheless, since FIG. 15 RF|C1 and RFICZ employ LNAs (low noise amplifiers) as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`amplifying stages, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made would have recognized the interchangeability of the LNAs, as taught in
`
`Kaukovuori et al. invention, for the claimed first means and second means for
`
`amplifying.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`6. Claims 2-10, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 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
`
`7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of
`
`time policy as set forth in 37 CFR1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KHANH C. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-
`
`3007. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 08:00 AM -
`
`05:00 PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Shuwang Liu can be reached on 571-272—3036. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`KCT
`
`/KHANH C TRAN/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/590,423
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2631
`
`