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 Amendment
2. Claims 1, 13, 15, 20, 25, 26, 29 and 30 are amended. Claims 3 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 31-32 are added. Claims 1-2, 4-18 and 20-32 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 6/30/2026 with respect to claims 1-30, have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4-18 and 20-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson (US. Pat. No. 7,856,065 B2) in view of Chien (US. Pat. No. 7,247,625 B2) and further in view of Wigren et al. (US. Pat. No. 9,332,507 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Jonsson discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (See Jonsson; Fig. 3; circuit for IQ imbalance compensation 30), comprising: one or more memories (See Jonsson; Fig. 3; additional baseband processing 39 [managing memory function]); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (See Jonsson; Fig. 3; IQ imbalance compensation circuit 34), the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the network node to:
measure a frequency dependent residual sideband distortion (See Col. 1, L. 26–38, Col. 3, L. 50–65 of Jonsson for a reference to measuring IQ imbalance (frequency-dependent residual sideband distortion) via amplitude/phase mismatch parameters between I and Q branches);
identify, based at least in part on the thermal noise, the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion, and a modulation and coding scheme, whether to enable or disable frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation at a device (See Col. 2, L. 21-42, Col. 6, L. 26-50 of Jonsson for a reference to identifying whether to enable or disable IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation based on MCS (lower vs. higher-order modulation) and noise/distortion conditions [FDRSB]); and
transmit an indication for the device to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or an indication for the device to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 2, L. 1-20 of Jonsson for a reference to transmitting/signaling a decision to a receiver to enable or disable IQ imbalance (FDRSB) compensation based on channel/MCS conditions).
Jonsson does not explicitly disclose calculate a thermal noise based at least in part on subtracting the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion from a quotient of one divided by a signal- to-noise ratio; identify, based at least in part on the thermal noise, whether to enable or disable frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation at a device.
However, Chien discloses calculate a thermal noise based at least in part on the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion and a signal-to-noise ratio (See Col. 2, L. 26-44, Col. 3, L. 21-40 of Chien for a reference to computing effective noise (equivalent to thermal noise) as a function of the residual sideband (FDRSB) distortion and SNR/image rejection metric, used to assess the impact of IQ imbalance); identify, based at least in part on the thermal noise, whether to enable or disable frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation at a device (See Col. 7, L. 20-30, Col. 11, L. 60-67, Col. 13, L. 29-47 of Chien for a reference to the network node determines, for a UE, to selectively enable or disable an advanced receiver processing feature based on SNR-based thresholds, including the thermal noise).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chien to Jonsson. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by compensating for the IQ imbalance, which improves the accuracy of the AFC and phase recovery loop. (Chien; Col. 44, L. 14-24)
The combination of Jonsson and Chien does not explicitly disclose thermal noise is calculated based at least in part on subtracting the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion from a quotient of one divided by a signal- to-noise ratio.
However, Wigren discloses thermal noise is calculated based at least in part on subtracting the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion from a quotient of one divided by a signal- to-noise ratio (See Col. 8; L 3-42, Col. 16; L 17-57 of Wigren for a reference to rise-over-thermal (RoT) as “the quotient between the momentary wide band power and a thermal noise floor level,” and separately teaches a stability-oriented noise-rise NR(t) computed by subtracting a neighbor-cell/interference power estimate from the received wideband power before dividing by the thermal-noise-floor estimate: NR_k,m(t) = [P_k,m,RTWP(t) − P̂_k,m,neighbor(t)] / P̂_m,N0(t). Rearranged, this shows thermal noise floor N derived from a quotient-type ratio (RoT = RTWP/N ⇒ N = RTWP/RoT) after an interference/distortion-like term has been subtracted from the power quantity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wigren to the combination of Jonsson and Chien. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving the estimation of the noise floor, by applying recursive estimation filter to the series of measurements and providing estimates of the received total wideband power. (Chien; Col. 7, L 65 – Col. 8; L. 2)
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to generate, based at least in part on identifying whether to enable or disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation at the device, a frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation message that indicates for the device to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or that indicates for the device to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 2, L. 21-42, Col. 6, L. 26-50 of Jonsson for a reference to generating an indication to enable or disable IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation based on MCS (lower vs. higher-order modulation) and noise/distortion conditions [FDRSB]),
wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to transmit the indication for the device to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication for the device to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the network node to transmit, to the device, the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation message that indicates for the device to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or that indicates for the device to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 2, L. 43-55, Col. 8, L. 1-15 of Jonsson for a reference to generating a compensation configuration (enable/disable message) and signaling it to the receiving device to control FDRSB cancellation. The receiver circuit may be further configured to calculate an IQ imbalance parameter, using the demodulated symbols, for use in compensating the received OFDM signal to reduce the effects of the IQ imbalances).
Regarding Claim 4, Jonsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion is based at least in part on a synchronization difference between an in-phase mixer and a quadrature mixer.
However, Chien discloses wherein the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion is based at least in part on a synchronization difference between an in-phase mixer and a quadrature mixer (See Col. 1, L. 16-38, Col. 2, L. 1-25 and Equation (4) of Chien for a reference to that FDRSB distortion arises directly from gain/phase synchronization differences (amplitude and phase mismatch) between the I-mixer and Q-mixer).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chien to Jonsson. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by compensating for the IQ imbalance, which improves the accuracy of the AFC and phase recovery loop. (Chien; Col. 44, L. 14-24)
Regarding Claim 5, Jonsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to measure the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion, are configured to cause the network node to divide a first parameter by a second parameter, the first parameter being based at least in part on subtracting a product of a gain offset and a phase offset from one, and the second parameter being based at least in part on adding one to the product of the gain offset and the phase offset.
However, Chien discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to measure the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion, are configured to cause the network node to divide a first parameter by a second parameter, the first parameter being based at least in part on subtracting a product of a gain offset and a phase offset from one, and the second parameter being based at least in part on adding one to the product of the gain offset and the phase offset (See Col. 2, L. 1-44, Col. 3, L. 1–20 and Equation (4) of Chien for a reference to the exact formula for FDRSB distortion measurement: (1 − gain_offset × phase_offset) / (1 + gain_offset × phase_offset), derived from [Equations (1)–(2) in the specification]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chien to Jonsson. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by compensating for the IQ imbalance, which improves the accuracy of the AFC and phase recovery loop. (Chien; Col. 44, L. 14-24)
Regarding Claim 6, Jonsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to calculate the thermal noise, are configured to cause the network node to calculate a total channel noise.
However, Chien discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to calculate the thermal noise, are configured to cause the network node to calculate a total channel noise (See Col. 3, L. 21-40, Col. 12, L. 1-25 and Fig. 12A of Chien for a reference to calculating total channel noise (sum of thermal noise and IQ residual sideband noise) as the basis for determining whether compensation should be applied).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chien to Jonsson. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by compensating for the IQ imbalance, which improves the accuracy of the AFC and phase recovery loop. (Chien; Col. 44, L. 14-24)
Regarding Claim 7, Jonsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to calculate the thermal noise based at least in part on the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion and the signal-to-noise ratio, are configured to cause the network node to calculate the thermal noise based at least in part on the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion, the signal-to-noise ratio, and at least one other noise parameter.
However, Chien discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to calculate the thermal noise based at least in part on the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion and the signal-to-noise ratio, are configured to cause the network node to calculate the thermal noise based at least in part on the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion, the signal-to-noise ratio, and at least one other noise parameter (See Col. 3, L. 1-40, Col. 12, L. 1-25 and Fig. 12A of Chien for a reference to thermal noise computation that incorporates FDRSB distortion, SNR (image reject ratio), and at least one other noise parameter such as phase offset Δθ, frequency offset Δω, or channel gain G).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chien to Jonsson. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by compensating for the IQ imbalance, which improves the accuracy of the AFC and phase recovery loop. (Chien; Col. 44, L. 14-24)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to identify whether to enable or disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the network node to identify to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation based at least in part on a frequency dependent residual sideband power level being less than the thermal noise by a threshold amount (See Col. 2, L. 21-42, Col. 6, L. 26-50 of Jonsson for a reference to disabling IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation when the FDRSB power level is less than the thermal noise by a threshold amount, because no SNR benefit is obtained from cancellation).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to identify whether to enable or disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the network node to identify to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation based at least in part on a frequency dependent residual sideband power level not being less than the thermal noise by a threshold amount (See Col. 2, L. 1-20, Col. 7, L. 40-65 of Jonsson for a reference to enabling IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation when FDRSB power is at or above the thermal noise threshold, because reliable decoding of higher-order MCS requires active compensation).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to identify whether to enable or disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the network node to identify to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation based at least in part on the signal-to-noise ratio being sufficient for decoding a signal using the modulation and coding scheme without applying the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 6, L. 1-50 of Jonsson for a reference to identifying to disable FDRSB cancellation when the SNR is sufficient to decode the signal using the current MCS (lower-order modulation) without applying IQ imbalance compensation).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to identify whether to enable or disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the network node to identify to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation based at least in part on the signal- to-noise ratio not being sufficient for decoding a signal using the modulation and coding scheme without applying the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 2, L. 21-42, Col. 7, L. 40-65 of Jonsson for a reference to enabling FDRSB cancellation when SNR is insufficient to decode the selected higher-order MCS without applying IQ imbalance (FDRSB) compensation).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to receive an indication of the signal-to-noise ratio from the device (See Col. 3, L. 1-30, Col. 6, L. 1-50 of Jonsson for a reference to the network node receiving SNR/channel quality information (via demodulated reference symbols from the UE) to inform the enable/disable decision for FDRSB cancellation).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to transmit the indication for the device to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the network node to transmit a physical downlink control channel message that includes the indication for the device to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 2, L. 43-55, Col. 8, L. 50-65 of Jonsson for a reference to transmitting a downlink control indication (analogous to PDCCH) from the network node to the UE to enable or disable IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the indication for the device to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication for the device to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation is included in a single bit of the physical downlink control channel message (See Col. 2, L. 21-42, Col. 7, L. 1-20 of Jonsson for a reference to a binary (enable/disable) IQ imbalance cancellation control decision, which is the minimal 1-bit representation consistent with a single-bit PDCCH DCI field).
Regarding Claim 15, Jonsson discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (See Jonsson; Fig. 3; circuit for IQ imbalance compensation 30), comprising: one or more memories (See Jonsson; Fig. 3; additional baseband processing 39 [managing memory function]); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (See Jonsson; Fig. 3; IQ imbalance compensation circuit 34), the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to:
receive an indication to enable frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or an indication to disable frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 2, L. 1-20 of Jonsson for a reference to a UE apparatus that receives a configuration (enable/disable) and selectively performs IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation based on that received indication); and
selectively perform frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation in accordance with the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 2, L. 21-42, Col. 6, L. 26-50 of Jonsson for a reference to generating an indication to enable or disable IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation based on MCS (lower vs. higher-order modulation) and noise/distortion conditions [FDRSB]).
Jonsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation is based at least in part on a thermal noise, a frequency dependent residual sideband distortion, and a modulation and coding scheme, and wherein the thermal noise is based at least in part on subtracting the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion from a quotient of one divided by a signal-to-noise ratio.
However Chien discloses wherein the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation is based at least in part on a thermal noise, a frequency dependent residual sideband distortion, and a modulation and coding scheme (See Col. 2, L. 1-44, Col. 3, L. 1-20 and Equation (4) of Chien for a reference to the mathematical formulation where thermal noise is derived from SNR and FDRSB distortion via the formula (1/SNR − FDRSB), using gain/phase offset parameters of I and Q branches).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chien to Jonsson. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by compensating for the IQ imbalance, which improves the accuracy of the AFC and phase recovery loop. (Chien; Col. 44, L. 14-24)
The combination of Jonsson and Chien does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermal noise is based at least in part on subtracting the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion from a quotient of one divided by a signal-to-noise ratio.
However, Wigren discloses wherein the thermal noise is based at least in part on subtracting the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion from a quotient of one divided by a signal-to-noise ratio (See Col. 8; L 3-42, Col. 16; L 17-57 of Wigren for a reference to rise-over-thermal (RoT) as “the quotient between the momentary wide band power and a thermal noise floor level,” and separately teaches a stability-oriented noise-rise NR(t) computed by subtracting a neighbor-cell/interference power estimate from the received wideband power before dividing by the thermal-noise-floor estimate: NR_k,m(t) = [P_k,m,RTWP(t) − P̂_k,m,neighbor(t)] / P̂_m,N0(t). Rearranged, this shows thermal noise floor N derived from a quotient-type ratio (RoT = RTWP/N ⇒ N = RTWP/RoT) after an interference/distortion-like term has been subtracted from the power quantity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wigren to the combination of Jonsson and Chien. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance; by improving the estimation of the noise floor, by applying recursive estimation filter to the series of measurements and providing estimates of the received total wideband power. (Chien; Col. 7, L 65 – Col. 8; L. 2)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the UE to receive a frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation message that indicates for the UE to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or that indicates for the UE to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 8, L. 1-50 of Jonsson for a reference to the UE receiving an FDRSB cancellation enable/disable message and using it to configure the IQ imbalance compensation circuit accordingly).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the UE to receive the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, and wherein selectively performing the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation comprises performing the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation based at least in part on receiving the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 7, L. 20-65 of Jonsson for a reference to the UE receiving an enable indication and actively performing IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation to produce a compensated signal for demodulation).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to receive the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the UE to receive the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, and wherein selectively performing the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation comprises refraining from performing the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation based at least in part on receiving the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation (See Col. 6, L. 1-50 of Jonsson for a reference to the UE refraining from IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation when a disable indication is received — demodulating directly from the uncompensated signal).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to transmit an indication of the signal-to-noise ratio, wherein the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation is based at least in part on the signal-to-noise ratio (See Col. 7, L. 40-65 , Col. 8, L. 1-30 of Jonsson for a reference to the UE measuring and reporting channel quality (SNR) via reference symbols, which the network uses to determine whether to signal enable/disable of FDRSB cancellation).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to selectively perform the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation, are configured to cause the UE to selectively perform the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation during a signal demodulation process performed by the UE (See Col. 7, L. 40-65 , Col. 8, L. 1-30 of Jonsson for a reference to the UE selectively performing IQ imbalance (FDRSB) cancellation as an integral part of the signal demodulation process for higher-order modulated channels).
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 4.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 8.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 9.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 10.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 11.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 13.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 14.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 15.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to identify whether to enable or disable frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation at the device, are further configured to cause the network node to: perform a first comparison between the thermal noise and the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion and a second comparison between the modulation and coding scheme and the signal-to-noise ratio (See Col. 6, L. 1-50 of Jonsson for a reference to identifying to disable FDRSB cancellation when the SNR is sufficient to decode the signal using the current MCS (lower-order modulation) without applying IQ imbalance compensation).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Jonsson, Chien and Wigren, specifically Jonsson discloses wherein the indication to enable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation or the indication to disable the frequency dependent residual sideband cancellation is based at least in part on a first comparison between the thermal noise and the frequency dependent residual sideband distortion and a second comparison between the modulation and coding scheme and the signal-to-noise ratio (See Col. 2, L. 21-42, Col. 7, L. 40-65 of Jonsson for a reference to enabling FDRSB cancellation when SNR is insufficient to decode the selected higher-order MCS without applying IQ imbalance (FDRSB) compensation).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shaked (US. Pub. No. 2024/0137964 A1) discloses techniques and apparatuses associated with frequency domain scheduling based on a frequency dependent residual side band (FDRSB) cancellation capability.
Gutman et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0337026 A1) discloses wireless communication, including communication security based on frequency domain residual sideband (FDRSB) characteristics.
Wu et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0264935 A1) discloses a double-talk state detection method, a double-talk state detection device and an electronic device.
7. 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 date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights