DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment field on 08/25/2025. Claims 1-10 and 12-19, of which claims 1 and 12 are independent, were pending in this application and have been considered below.
Applicant canceling claims 11 and 20 is acknowledged.
Rejection claims 11 and 20 is rendered moot in view of their cancellation by the applicant’s amendment, except as specifically set forth below.
Claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments---
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-10 and 12-19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Claims recites the limitation “remodulating the digital signal” (line 14 of claim 1; line ; line 16 of claim 12), which is vague and indefinite because the term “remodulation” suggests that limitation “digital signal” must have gone through modulation/demodulation process before, which should have been described earlier in the claim. However, there is not even sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the digital signal” in the claim. It is noted however that the specification disclose: “FIG. 9 is a diagrammatical illustration of the signal interference cancellation block 72 of the receiver 50 used with the system of enhanced RF communications 10, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown, the input to the signal interference cancellation block is the demodulated received composite signal Rdem from demodulator 70, per FIG. 8. The Rdem signal is then remodulated using a modulating block 74 that matches the modulation of the standard demodulation block used, e.g., demodulator block 70.” (line 21 of page 15 to line 3 of page 16 – emphasis added), which clearly indicates that the Rdem signal is being remodulated only after being demodulated. Therefore, it is recommended to amend the claim to include the demodulated digital signal.
Claims also recite the limitation “the received digital signal” (line 16 of claim 1; line ; line 18 of claim 12), which is vague and indefinite because claim earlier only disclose “remodulating the digital signal, i.e., the claim is silent about receiving the digital signal and there is insufficient antecedent basis for the aforesaid limitation in the claim.
Claims then recite “subtracting the remodulated digital signal from the received digital signal, thereby substantially canceling the first RF signal from the digital signal”; line 16 of claim 1; line ; line 18 of claim 12), which is vague and indefinite because it is not clear how “the remodulated digital signal”, which is an analog quantity could be subtracted from “the received digital signal”, which is a digital quantity; or how to cancel “the first RF signal”, which is an analog quantity from “the digital signal”, which is a digital quantity.
Claims further recite "reducing noise from additional RF signals in the digital signal with an averaging block to produce an averaged signal" (line 18 of claim 1; line 20 of claim 12), which term "additional RF signals in the digital signal" make it vague and indefinite, because claims earlier recite "the digital signal corresponding to the first RF signal" (line 14 of claim 1; line ; line 16 of claim 12), i.e., the first RF signal corresponds only to the digital signal. Therefore, it is not clear what is meant by “the additional RF signals”. Furthermore, the language “additional RF signals in the digital signal” (line 18 of claim 1; line 20 of claim 12) is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear how “additional RF signals”, which are analog quantities could be in “the digital signals”, which are digital quantities. Claim suggest using an “averaging block” to “reduce noise” from aforesaid “the additional signal”, however, the specification and drawings are silent about what “averaging block” is and how such noise reduction performed by it. The aforesaid issues leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 13-19, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 1 and 12, correspondingly.
Claims 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “second RF channel which operate within the spectral mask of the first RF channel”. Claims 1 and 12 now amended to replace the limitation “RF channel” with “first RF channel” and “second RF channel”, in which “first RF signal” and “second RF signal” are being transmitted through them, correspondingly. This means the claimed system is no longer in full duplex operation, but perform in a single direction. Specifically, while “the first and second RF signals” transmitted at the same time and frequency, they are transmitted through different channels, i.e., “the first and the second RF channels”, respectively, as supported by the disclosure: “It is noted that FIG. 1 depicts the system 10 in full duplex operation, however, it is possible to utilize the system 10 in a single direction … TM channels 16 which operate within the spectral mask of the original channel 14, such that signals transmitted within the TM channels 16 do not exceed the spectral mask of 20 the original channel 14. … the system 10 may modify the transmitter 30 to allow one or more additional radio frequency signals to be transmitted at the same time and frequency of the original signal, e.g., through one or more of the original channel 14 and/or the TM channels 16.” (line 13 of page 7 to line 8 of page 8 – truncated, emphasis added). Claims now recite “one first RF channel having a spectral mask” (line 3 of claim 1; line 6 of claim 12). Considering “the first and second RF signals” are now transmitted on “the first and second RF channels”, the cooperative relationship between the channels need to be specified, as stated in the discloser highlighted above. It is recommended to amend the claims to replace the phrase “second RF channel” ( line 7 of claim 1; line 9 of claim 12) with -- second RF channel which operate within the spectral mask of the first RF channel--.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 13-19, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claims 1 and 12, correspondingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
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
Examiner's note: Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
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.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631