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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants submit that the combination of features in each of claims 1 and 19 as amended is not disclosed or suggested in Orlik.
Examiner submits, as discussed below in the 112(a) rejection, that the amended portions of claims 1 and 19 constitutes new matter to Applicants disclosure. Furthermore, Orlik teaches of selecting a group (#210, Fig.2) of one or more subcarriers among the multiple subcarriers, selected group including the DC subcarrier and a percentage of the guard band subcarriers (as shown in Fig.2), the percentage in a range of 25 percent to 100 percent (100%, the group including both guard bands #220, #222, Fig.2). Therefore, Orlik teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 19.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 – 19 are 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 1 was amended to recite “the selected group including the DC subcarrier and a percentage of the guard band subcarriers, the percentage in a range of 25 percent to 100 percent;” in lines 7 – 8. In reviewing Applicants disclosure, the specification recites of the selected group can include some or all of the guard band subcarriers (Paragraph 0006). However, there is no disclosure of the selected group including a percentage of the guard band subcarriers, the percentage in a range of 25 percent to 100 percent. Therefore, the amendment to claim 1 after the filing of the original disclosure constitutes new matter. The same rejection applies to claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 10 – 11, 14 – 15 and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orlik et al (US 2010/0260276).
Re claim 1, Orlik teaches of a method for multiplexing signals, the method comprising: providing multiple subcarriers including a first group of data subcarriers (group, #240 and data subcarriers #231, Fig.2), a second group of data subcarriers (other groups, Fig.2), a DC subcarrier between the first and second groups of data subcarriers (#250, Fig.2), and a group of guard band subcarriers (#222, #220, Fig.2); selecting a group of one or more subcarriers among the multiple subcarriers, selected group including the DC subcarrier and a percentage of the guard band subcarriers (#210, Fig.2), the percentage in a range of 25 percent to 100 percent (100%, the group including both guard bands #220, #222, Fig.2); adjusting each subcarrier of the selected group by providing a non-zero amplitude (amplitude, Paragraph 0041) and a phase (phase, Paragraph 0079); maintaining the first and second groups of data subcarriers such that magnitude and phase of any of the data subcarriers are not being altered (a constant or uniform amplitude for data subcarriers (Paragraph 0041) and setting the phase independently (Paragraph 0079) (so as to minimize PAPR, Paragraphs 0041 and 0079); and performing a multiplexing operation with the multiple subcarriers to obtain an output signal (OFDM, Fig.2 and Abstract, Paragraphs 0022 and 0042, Table 1), the output signal having an adjusted property resulting from the adjusting of the one or more subcarriers of the selected group (PAPR, Paragraphs 0041 and 0079 – 0080).
Re claim 10, Orlik teaches of wherein the non-zero amplitude includes a fixed amplitude for all of the subcarriers of the selected group (Paragraph 0041 and Fig.2).
Re claim 11, Orlik teaches of wherein the non-zero amplitude is selected to be less than the largest amplitude among the data subcarriers (amplitude of data subcarriers, #231 is less that amplitude of pilot subcarriers, #230, Fig.2).
Re claim 14, Orlik teaches of wherein the adjusted property of the output signal includes an adjusted peak to average power ratio (PAPR) (minimizing PAPR, Paragraph 0041 and Fig.2).
Re claim 15, Orlik teaches of wherein the adjusted PAPR includes a reduced PAPR (minimizing PAPR, Paragraph 0041 and Fig.2).
Re claim 18, Orlik teaches of wherein the multiplexing operation includes an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) operation (OFDM, Abstract, Paragraphs 0022 and 0042, Table 1).
Re claim 19, Orlik teaches of a method for determining an adjustment for a multiplexing operation, the method comprising: selecting a group of subcarriers (#210, Fig.2), such that the selected group includes a DC subcarrier (#250, Fig.2) and a percentage of guard band subcarriers (guard bands #220, #222, Fig.2), the percentage in a range of 25 percent to 100 percent (100%, the group including both guard bands #220, #222, Fig.2); performing a multiplexing operation (OFDM, Fig.2 and Abstract, Paragraphs 0022 and 0042, Table 1) with multiple subcarriers including a plurality of groups (groups, #240, Fig.2) of data subcarriers (data subcarriers #231, Fig.2), the DC subcarrier (#250, Fig.2) and the guard band subcarriers (guard bands #220, #222, Fig.2) to obtain respective output signals, the multiplexing operation performed with each subcarrier of the selected group having a non-zero amplitude (amplitude, Paragraph 0041) and a phase (phase, Paragraph 0079), and the groups of data subcarriers being maintained so that magnitude and phase of any of the data subcarriers are not being altered (a constant or uniform amplitude for data subcarriers (Paragraph 0041); selecting an output signal that provides a desired property (PAPR, Paragraphs 0041 and 0079 – 0080); and setting an adjustment value for each subcarrier of the selected group based on the multiplexing operation that provided the output signal with the desired property (Paragraph 0079) (so as to minimize PAPR, Paragraphs 0041 and 0079).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlik in view of Nakagiri (US 2009/0168913).
Re claim 12, Orlik teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the phase provided to each subcarrier of the selected group includes a selected phase obtained from an iterative process where phase is allowed to vary, the selected phase corresponding to an output having a desired property resulting from a multiplexing operation with the selected phase provided for each subcarrier of the selected group.
Nakagiri teaches of a phase provided to each subcarrier includes a selected phase obtained from an iterative process where phase is allowed to vary (S6, Fig.4 and #18, Fig.1), the selected phase corresponding to an output having a desired property resulting from a multiplexing operation with the selected phase provided for each subcarrier (S7, Fig.4) (Paragraphs 0057 – 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a phase obtained from an iterative process for suppressing peak power of a OFDM signal.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlik in view of Kant et al (US 2020/0052945).
Re claim 13, Orlik teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the non-zero amplitude and the phase provided to each subcarrier of the selected group are tailored to generate one or more peaks in a time domain signal with each peak having a phase that cancels some or all of a corresponding peak identified in an uncorrected time domain signal.
Kant teaches of wherein the non-zero amplitude and the phase provided to each subcarrier of the selected group are tailored to generate one or more peaks in a time domain signal with each peak having a phase that cancels some or all of a corresponding peak identified in an uncorrected time domain signal (Paragraph 0055 and Figures 3 – 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the non-zero amplitude and the phase provided to each subcarrier of the selected group are tailored to perform PAPR reduction and spectrum shaping of each of the generated signal.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlik in view of Engin et al (US 9,893,920).
Re claim 16, Orlik teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as well as a reduced PAPR (Paragraph 0041 and 0079). Orlik does not specifically teach of providing an output signal with a reduced PAPR to a power amplifier to obtain an amplified signal.
Engin teaches of providing an output signal (OFDM signal, Col 4, Lines 54 – 67, Fig.3) with a reduced PAPR (#314, Fig.3) to a power amplifier to obtain an amplified signal (#310, Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the PAPR reduction for an efficient operation of a power amplifier.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlik and Engin in view of Bose et al (US 2011/0135035).
Re claim 17, Orlik and Engin teach all the limitations of claim 16 as well as Engin teaches of wherein the amplified signal is obtained with an improved power amplification efficiency when compared to an amplified signal resulting from amplification of an output of a multiplexing operation without adjustment of the one or more subcarriers of the selected group (Col 4, Lines 40 – 67). However, Orlik and Engin do not specifically teach of an improved error vector magnitude (EVM) performance, and an improved adjacent channel power ratio (ACPR) performance
Bose teaches of an improved error vector magnitude (EVM) performance, and an improved adjacent channel power ratio (ACPR) performance (Paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have known that the PAPR reduction would improve the power efficiency compared to no PAPR reduction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have analyzed parameters such as EVM and ACPR so as to determine and improve the performance of a power amplifier.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights