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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 01/13/2026.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objection to the drawings set forth in the previous office action, the objection is hereby withdrawn. In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objection to specification, the objection is hereby withdrawn. In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objections to the claims, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150111515 (Su) in view of one or more of (US 20220015115 (Österling) and/or WO 2019245598 (KULARATNA)).
Regarding claim 1, Su teaches “A base station (paragraph 0038: FIG. 4 illustrates a base station) configured for enhanced receiver sensitivity (paragraph 0038: the base station is equipped with an apparatus 40 for reducing distortion of an uplink signal received in a receiver part 20 of the base station), comprising:
a receiver (Rx) configured to receive an Rx output signal in an Rx band (paragraph 0038: a receiver part 20 of the base station receiving an uplink signal); and
a processing device (paragraph 0038: an apparatus 40 for reducing distortion) configured to:
receive the Rx output signal from the receiver on an Rx path (paragraph 0038: the apparatus 40 has a second input 52 for receiving a UL signal, i.e. an uplink radio signal, from the receiver part 20.);
receive a crest factor reduction (CFR) output signal from a CFR on a transmit (Tx) path (paragraph 0038: The apparatus has a first input 51 for receiving a transmitter source signal, e.g. a DL radio signal, from the transmitter part 10, representing “a transmit (Tx) path”. Paragraph 0044: a coarse delay unit 42 for delaying the copied transmitter source signal to make the copied transmitter source signal aligned in time with the received uplink signal. Paragraph 0039: a generating unit 44 for generating, from a transmitter source signal, a modeled signal of IM components. Paragraph 0042: the generating unit 44 is arranged to generate the modeled IM component signal after digital up-conversion and crest factor reduction have been performed on the transmitter source signal. This means that “a crest factor reduction (CFR) output signal from a CFR” has been received);
calibrate the CFR output signal based on the Rx output signal (paragraph 0039: the apparatus comprises an IM detection unit 46 for detecting IM products of the received uplink signal (“the Rx output signal”), the received uplink signal comprising UL traffic components and the IM products, by correlating the received uplink signal with the IM components of the modeled signal. Paragraph 0046: In the IM detection unit 46, the model signal comprising the generated IM components is correlated with the UL radio signal to find the IM products of the UL radio signal.) to generate a non-linear actuation (NA) input signal (paragraph 0046: A signal comprising the found IM products (representing “a non-linear actuation (NA) input signal”) are then fed to the cancellation signal producing unit 48 to produce a cancellation signal that would comprise the found IM products.)…”
“…generate an intermodulation distortion signal by using the NA function on the NA input signal (paragraph 0039: The apparatus further comprises a cancellation signal producing unit 48 for producing a cancellation signal based on the detected IM products (i.e. using an output signal from the IM detection unit 46, which maps to “using an NA function on the NA input signal”) of the received uplink signal).”
Su does not teach “compute an NA function using one or more passive intermodulation cancellation (PIMC) coefficients.”
Österling teaches “compute an NA function using one or more passive intermodulation cancellation (PIMC) coefficients (paragraph 0002: Passive intermodulation (PIM), is an uplink (UL) interference issue. Distortion products caused by nonlinearities in the transmitter could fall into the receive band and raise the over-all receiver noise figure. Measuring the UL signal and determining which combination of the down link (DL) signal that is returning. This is converted to a set of coefficients in a nonlinear filter which then continuously generate the same signals which are assumed to return. These signals (corresponds to claimed “an intermodulation distortion signal”) are then subtracted from the received signal, and thereby “cancelling” the PIM, i.e. removing the impact of the PIM before reaching the baseband. In other words, the signal to be subtracted is generated by using a set of coefficients (“one or more passive intermodulation cancellation (PIMC) coefficients”) in a nonlinear filter, the filtering function of which represents “an NA function”. Par. 0029 - 0031: An analyzing function analyzes the DL signals and received UL signals to determine reflections and their corresponding regeneration coefficients for a subtraction function (“an NA function”) of the generated reflected signal. This generated reflected signal is then subtracted from the received UL signal on the UL frequency band.).”
Additionally or alternatively, KULARATNA also teaches “compute an NA function using one or more passive intermodulation cancellation (PIMC) coefficients (at least p.1 lines 25 – 31: calculating time domain complex coefficients and for providing at least some of the time domain complex coefficients as a filter model representing the filter (“compute an NA function”) for a subsequent means for passive intermodulation cancellation.).”
Therefore, since Su does not disclose details of calculation of the cancellation signal based on the detected IM products, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Österling or KULARATNA passive intermodulation cancellation (PIMC) coefficients to calculate the subtraction function, in the system of Su simply to fill in where Su is silent and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Su teaches “wherein the processing device is further configured to: calibrate the CFR output signal based on one or more time delay coefficients (paragraph 0029: The transmitter source signal may be delayed at a coarse delay buffer. A delay default value may be used which may be calibrated or provided by a designer such that the cancellation signal and the received IM products are at the same observation window. Also paragraph 0046);
calibrate the CFR output signal based on one or more gain adjust coefficients (paragraph 0030: producing 112 a cancellation signal based on the detected IM products of the received uplink signal is accomplished by adjusting … gain … of the modeled signal. Also paragraph 0043); and
calibrate the CFR output signal based on one or more phase adjust coefficients (paragraph 0030: producing 112 a cancellation signal based on the detected IM products of the received uplink signal is accomplished by adjusting … phase of the modeled signal. Also paragraph 0043.).”
Regarding claim 4, Su teaches “further comprising: one or more filters (paragraph 0024 and FIG 1 and 4: a transmitter band pass filter 14 and a receiver band pass filter 24. In the receiver band pass filter 24 the frequencies outside the receiving frequencies are filtered out) configured to remove signals outside a frequency range for a PIMC signal (paragraph 0024: In the receiver band pass filter 24 the frequencies outside the receiving frequencies (corresponds to a broadly recited “a frequency range for a PIMC signal”) are filtered out) as computed based on a frequency shift of the intermodulation distortion signal (paragraph 0041: the generating unit 44 generates the nth order IM components by calculating an nth order product of the transmitter source signal, and frequency shifting the calculated nth order product from the DL frequency band to the UL base band. Since the output of the cancellation signal producing unit 48, representing “the intermodulation distortion signal” is based on the output of the generating unit 44, the cancellation signal is also frequency shifted.).”
Regarding claim 8, Su teaches “further comprising: a PIMC subtractor configured to generate a corrected Rx signal based on the intermodulation distortion signal and the Rx output signal (FIG 4 and paragraph 0039: a subtraction unit 49 for subtracting the cancellation signal (“the intermodulation distortion signal”) from the received uplink signal (“the Rx output signal”). Paragraph 0046: to produce a UL radio signal with no or at least reduced IM products at the output 53 of the apparatus 40 (“configured to generate a corrected Rx signal”).).”
Regarding claim 9, Su teaches “further comprising:
an on-board calibration unit (implemented in an IM detection unit 46 and a cancellation signal producing unit 48) configured to calibrate the CFR output signal based on the Rx output signal (paragraph 0039: detecting IM products of the received uplink signal (“the Rx output signal”) by correlating the received uplink signal with the IM components of the modeled signal.) using adaptive calculation and adaptive adjustment (paragraph 0043: the cancellation signal producing unit 48 is arranged to produce a cancellation signal based on the detected IM products of the received uplink signal by adjusting delay, gain and/or phase of the modeled signal such that the cancellation signal is adapted to the detected IM products of the received uplink signal. Therefore, an “adaptive adjustment” is performed on the signal. “Adaptive calculation” is implicit to arrive at the final result of elimination of IM distortion); or
an on-board coefficient estimation engine configured to compute the NA function using one or more passive intermodulation cancellation (PIMC) coefficients that are calculated and updated based on radio traffic data (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met. Alternatively, this is disclosed by either Österling or KULARATNA as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above).”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150111515 (Su) and one or more of (US 20220015115 (Österling) and/or WO 2019245598 (KULARATNA)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20040166800 (Sun).
Regarding claim 3, Su does not teach “wherein the processing device is further configured to: compute the NA function using a non-linear function including one or more of: a look-up table (LUT), a polynomial, a wavelet function, or a piecewise linear (PWL) function.”
In Su, “the NA function” corresponds to detected IM products present at the output signal from the IM detection unit 46, used to generate a cancellation signal in the cancellation signal producing unit 48, which is a nonlinear function (see paragraph 0010: A transmitter source signal is a signal to be transmitted downlink including the carrier frequencies. Nth order IM components of the transmitter source signal are combinations of the carrier frequencies of the transmitter source signal occurring due to non-linearities of components of the base station affecting the transmitted signal.). Su does not disclose specific details how this function is determined.
On the other side, Sun teaches in claim 2 performing a table look-up to determine the non-linear function associated with the non-linear effect.
Thus Sun teaches “using a non-linear function including one or more of: a look-up table (LUT), a polynomial, a wavelet function, or a piecewise linear (PWL) function.”
Therefore, since Su does not disclose specifics on how the non-linear function is determined, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to take Sun’s teaching of using a look-up table to determine the non-linear function associated with the non-linear effect, and use it in the system of Su to fill in where Su is silent and simply as design choice with predictable results, since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150111515 (Su) and one or more of (US 20220015115 (Österling) and/or WO 2019245598 (KULARATNA)) evidenced by WO 2006017236 (LARZABAL).
Regarding claim 5, Su teaches “further comprising: a multi-band filter (paragraph 0024 and FIG 1 and 4: a transmitter band pass filter 14 and a receiver band pass filter 24.) configured to select an Rx frequency range to remove…” “…downlink frequency bands (paragraph 0024 and FIG 1 and 4: in the receiver band pass filter 24 the frequencies outside the receiving frequencies are filtered out. The receiving frequencies correspond to “configured to select an Rx frequency range”, and filtering out the frequencies outside of the receiving frequencies correspond to “to remove…” “…downlink frequency bands”).”
Su does not teach a specific case of “interleaved uplink and downlink frequency bands”.
However, this type of arrangement is well known in the art, as may be evidenced by LARZABAL, page 6 and FIG 1 showing frequency band assignments for an interleaved system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize, in the system of Su, such a filter that would select only the desired receive frequency band and filter out all the rest of the frequencies of any uplink or downlink bands that are not desired in case of utilizing “interleaved uplink and downlink frequency bands.” Doing so would have allowed to simplify operation of the circuitry by removing all unnecessary frequencies prior to subsequent processing disclosed by Su.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150111515 (Su) and one or more of (US 20220015115 (Österling) and/or WO 2019245598 (KULARATNA)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200177229 (Huang).
Regarding claim 6, Su does not teach “wherein the processing device is further configured to: re-sample the intermodulation distortion signal to match an in-phase and quadrature (IQ) sample rate of the Rx output signal based on a re-sample ratio between the Rx output signal and the CFR output signal; and compute a resampling timing phase adjustment.”
In similar art of passive intermodulation cancellation, Huang teaches “re-sample the intermodulation distortion signal to match an IQ sample rate of the Rx output signal (paragraph 0044: The upsampled distortion signal d′ (corresponds to claimed “the intermodulation distortion signal”) is downsampled by a downsampler 146 (“re-sample[d]”) to the sampling rate of the receive signal
y
~
(“to match an … sample rate of the Rx output signal”. Although Huang does not state anything about “in-phase and quadrature (IQ)”, in the previous office action the Examiner took an Official Notice that usage of “I” and “Q” components of the received signal was well known and widely used in the art at the effective filing date of the application. Since the applicant failed to properly traverse the Official Notice, this common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is now taken to be admitted prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize “I” and “Q” components of the received signal in the device of Huang. Doing so would have allowed more efficient data transmission and reception, particularly in modern digital communication systems.) retaining the part of the upsampled distortion signal that corresponds to the receive band producing a distortion signal d, which has baseband distortion components 256.) based on a re-sample ratio between the Rx output signal and the …[derivative of the transmitted signal] (implicit, since by definition, the resampling is performed to match the sampling rate of the receive signal
y
~
); and compute a resampling timing phase adjustment (paragraph 0042: the upsampler 132 implementing a delay of the signal by a time τ, which is computed by a correlator 134. Paragraph 0045: the upsampler 132 is responsive to a delay input 2 to compensate for the delay of the distortion components of the input signal through the RF section 150. This delay value is determined by a correlator 134, which receives the predicted distortion signal d′ and the upsampled received signal y′. The correlator 134 essentially performs a cross-correlation of its input signals to determine the delay τ at which the input signals are most correlated. In other words, the upsampled signal is delayed in phase (i.e. performed “timing phase adjustment”) in such a manner that the downsampled signal d from the downsampler 146 (“resampled” signal) aligns in time and phase with a received signal
y
~
).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Huang resampling and timing adjustment of the intermodulation distortion signal, in the system of Su. Doing so would have allowed to match the sampling rate of the distortion signal to the sampling rate of the receive signal (see Huang, paragraph 0044).
Although Huang is silent on the usage of “the CFR output signal” in determination of the re-sampling ratio, in the device of combined Su and Huang’s disclosures, the transmission signal fed into the IM distortion correction system would have undergone crest factor reduction as disclosed by Su, thus resulting in the usage of “the CFR output signal” in determination of the re-sampling ratio, as the claim requires.
Regarding claim 7, Su does not teach “further comprising: an adaptive filter configured to adjust a gain of the intermodulation distortion signal (paragraph 0043: the cancellation signal producing unit 48 is arranged to produce a cancellation signal based on the detected IM products of the received uplink signal by adjusting … gain … of the modeled signal such that the cancellation signal is adapted to the detected IM products of the received uplink signal. Therefore, the cancellation signal producing unit 48 acts as claimed “an adaptive filter”.)…” or
“…an adaptive filter configured to adjust a phase of the intermodulation distortion signal (paragraph 0043: the cancellation signal producing unit 48 is arranged to produce a cancellation signal based on the detected IM products of the received uplink signal by adjusting … phase of the modeled signal such that the cancellation signal is adapted to the detected IM products of the received uplink signal. Therefore, the cancellation signal producing unit 48 acts as claimed “an adaptive filter”.)…”
Su does not disclose that any of the above adjustments are “based on an automatic gain control (AGC) error, a low noise amplifier (LNA) error, or a temperature-induced error.”
In similar art of passive intermodulation cancellation, Huang in paragraph 0038 teaches that one factor that is taken into account is a delay by a delay time τ in the path from the transmit signal x being input and the intermodulation distortion components of that signal appearing in the received signal
y
~
. Such delays may be due to analog phase delays introduced in a power amplifier or other components of the analog transmit circuitry 152 or analog receive circuitry 154. Furthermore, the delay time is not necessarily constant and may depend on factors such as the gain settings of amplifiers (which in the case of the analog receive circuitry 154 would have included any “low noise amplifier (LNA) error”), which may vary according to automatic gain control functions in the RF section 150 (corresponding to any present “automatic gain control (AGC) error”). Thus, the delay is tracked on an ongoing basis. In other words, Huang teaches adjusting delay time “based on an automatic gain control (AGC) error, a low noise amplifier (LNA) error.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that since Su teaches adjusting delay, gain and/or phase of the modeled signal to adapt the cancellation signal to the detected IM products of the received uplink signal, to base the determination of these delay, gain and/or phase of the modeled signal on any “automatic gain control (AGC) error” or any “low noise amplifier (LNA) error” that may be present in the system, as suggested by Huang. Doing so would have allowed to continuously adjust these parameters based on current system performance.
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648