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 .
Claims 1-30 is/are presented in RCE of 1/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented with the RCE of 1/28/2026 are directed to new language introduced in the claims, specifically: “a difference between a measured ADC input power and an expected ADC input power for each of a plurality of worst case gain conditions ranging from a worst case minimum (-) gain condition to a worst case maximum (+) gain condition and for each of a plurality of selectable gain states and based on a carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) threshold and an ADC saturation threshold”.
See the updated/new ground of rejection sections under 35 USC 112 and 103 for discussion of the new amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The means for invocation is applied to the following claims and any of its dependent claims:
19. A device for adjusting gain, comprising: means for determining an expected analog-to-digital converter (ADC) input power; means for measuring an actual ADC input power; means for determining a difference (Δ) between the actual ADC input power and the expected ADC input power; and means for adjusting a gain switch point based on the difference (Δ).
20. The device of claim 19, further comprising means for adjusting the gain switch point to prevent ADC saturation.
21. The device of claim 19, further comprising means for adjusting the gain switch point to reallocate excess ADC input margin to carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR).
22. The device of claim 19, further comprising means for selecting the gain switch point to reduce excess carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and increase ADC saturation margin.
23. The device of claim 19, further comprising means for selecting the gain switch point to increase carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and reduce ADC saturation margin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 9, 19, and 25 are now amended with the following language:
“a difference between a measured ADC input power and an expected ADC input power for each of a plurality of worst case gain conditions ranging from a worst case minimum (-) gain condition to a worst case maximum (+) gain condition and for each of a plurality of selectable gain states and based on a carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) threshold and an ADC saturation threshold”. Specifically:
The language of “worst case gain conditions” is inherently subjective. The claim language fails to specify the definition/criteria/parameters that define what a “worst case gain condition” is. What one engineer considered a worst case might drastically differ from another depending on respective priorities (for example, worst case in terms of level of side effect/risk vs. worst case measured by limit of system efficiency/noise/interference etc.). Such a language in the claim leaves person of ordinary skill in the ark in the dark as to what constitutes a worst case. Without a clear definition, “worst scenario” is a moving target, rendering claim interpretation virtually impossible for all intend and purposes. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
The claims are further unclear because of a failure to provide comparison base. If the worst case is intended to be a limit, the Applicant must provide the how/where of that limit. Without a reference point, the examiner cannot perform a prior art search as the scope of the claim changes based on the observer’s perspective.
The ambiguity is further compounded by the language “a worst case minimum (-) gain condition” and “ a worst case maximum (+) gain condition”. There is a contradiction in the claim language. If a “minimum gain” means the gain is minimum (presumably worst condition), PHOSITA would reasonably question as to how there are a plurality of worst conditions when there can realistically only one minimum value in a given range of values. Similarly, if a maximum is considered max, what does it mean by “worst case max gain”, i.e. IF a max gain is a worst max gain, then it is not a max gain.
Lastly, given the questionable natures of the language “a worst case minimum (-) gain condition” and “ a worst case maximum (+) gain condition”, and the subjectivity of the term “worst case”, it certain raises the questions whether the system/method as claimed sufficiently describes the essential steps/structures that define, handle, and operate these “a worst case minimum (-) gain condition” and “ a worst case maximum (+) gain condition”. Such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Respective dependent claims of Independent claims 1, 9, 19, and 25 have been evaluated and they fail to provide remedy/clarification to the issues above and thus inherit the shortcomings.
In conclusion, the claim language of “a difference between a measured ADC input power and an expected ADC input power for each of a plurality of worst case gain conditions ranging from a worst case minimum (-) gain condition to a worst case maximum (+) gain condition” render the affected claims indefinite. Not only the boundaries of the claims are unclear, the ambiguity and contradiction within the limitations above pose significant challenge for claim interpretation. For purpose of examination, the examiner will perform best attempt with BRI until further clarification.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2011/0286501) in view of Weissman et al. (US 2011/0021168).
As to claim 1:
Cai discloses:
A system for adjusting feedback receiver gain (Fig. 6/13, ¶0083-0090, system/method with feedback loop and gain correction logic), comprising:
a power amplifier configured to generate a transmit signal; (PA 500, ¶0083, transmitter with PA to generate an amplified signal for transmission at a desired level)
a feedback receiver configured to receive a portion of the transmit signal, the feedback receiver having a gain element and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC); (Feedback path 700, ¶0085, 700 is tapped off the PA signal output. Gain element 720 per ¶0086 for scaling feedback data, and an ADC 750 described in ¶085)
and a processor and a memory operably coupled to the gain element; wherein the processor and memory are configured to perform adjusted gain for the gain element based on a difference between a measured ADC input power and an expected ADC input power. (¶0089, “ Processor within the Digital Feedback Processor 800 computes the ratio of the either the Pre-DDPD signal or post-DDPD signal with the Feedback signal and then compares that ratio to the expected gain to determine the gain offset. Because the gain offset error due to the RF Feedback may already be corrected if the gain is put in the feedback, the AGC gain offset measured is due to the RF Transmit Up Converter and PA system. This gain error can be corrected at the Post-DDPD Signal Conditioner or the RF Transmit Up Converter or both, in such a way that the signal entering to the DAC is maintained at the desirable level”)
Cai discloses select gain adjustment mechanism based on a difference between measured ADC input and expected ADC power, as well as ADC saturation threshold (¶0140, “ To assure no saturation on the ADC, the Gain Adjustment, g.sub.3 is set such that the largest rms signal level into the ADC is at the desired level”, i.e. ADC threshold is represented by a value and is taken into account, and the system is mindful not to cross such ADC saturation value. See also Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, preventing ADC saturation), however does not explicitly frame the gain controller involving a “switch point” for each of a plurality of worst case gain conditions ranging from a worst case minimum (-) gain condition to a worst case maximum (+) gain condition, or does Cai discloses adjusting gains for each of a plurality of gain states based on CNR thresholds.
Weissman, in the same field of gain dynamic adaptation, discloses a system/process for gain correction/adaptation with a AGC similar to Cai, with further framing of a gain switch point adjustment per ¶0033-0039, 0043, 0056, where in the gains are controlled using dynamic gain switch point selection with use of ADC input level to manage gains, wherein the adjustment of switch points for each of a plurality of gain stages (¶0034-0046, “switch points are denoted as SPxy with the x value denoting the mode and the y value denoting the switch point. In FIG. 4, each mode (mode 1 and mode 2) has six switch points. Gain states are denoted as G0 through G6 for mode 1 and G1 through G6 for mode 2”, ¶0035, “GC receiver starts at the highest gain state G0 for low input power levels (Pin) and transitions to successive gain states (G1, G2, G3, . . . ) at corresponding switch points (SP11, SP12, SP13 . . . ) as the input power level (Pin) increases”. See further ¶038, 0051). Weissman also discloses the operation is based on CNR threshold, see at least Fig. 2, 0030, wherein a flat ceiling of C/N ratio is used to judge outputs).
Weissman also disclose consideration of switch points corresponding to a plurality of gain condition per ¶0032, “ the high linearity mode and the high sensitivity mode. For example, the dual modes are: 1) high sensitivity mode for low power signals and weak or no jammers and 2) high linearity mode with moderate sensitivity for strong jammers (shown within the dash lines). FIG. 3 shows some example gain state values for the dual modes. For example, the high sensitivity mode includes gain state G0 at 20 dB with a noise figure of 1.4 dB. The high linearity mode includes five gain states, for example, G1 at 14.5 dB (with noise figure at 1.7 dB), G2 at 9.5 dB, G3 at 3 dB, G4 at -8.5 dB and G5 at -22 dB.”, and ¶035-0037 discusses selecting of switch points corresponding each of the gain conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Cai’s gain adjustment to adjust its gains with switch points adjustments as described in Weissman with C/N based method for multiple gain states. Given that Cai calculate offset between expected/measured signal strength, which implicitly involves ADC input comparison. Weissman reinforces this with AGC logic that select gain switch point to prevent ADC saturation, complementing Cai’s system to result to a dynamically gain selection in the feedback receiver based on feedback analysis at various levels, thus improving flexibility.
As to claim 9:
Cai discloses:
A method for adjusting gain Fig. 6/13, ¶0083-0090, system/method with feedback loop and gain correction logic), comprising: determining an expected analog-to-digital converter (ADC) input power; measuring an actual ADC input power; determining a difference (Δ) between the actual ADC input power and the expected ADC input power; and adjusting a gain switch point based on the difference (Δ). (See at least 0083-0089. Cai discloses sampling output of the PA, calculating offset/error between expected/measured feedback signal strength. Specifically: 0089, “ Processor within the Digital Feedback Processor 800 computes the ratio of the either the Pre-DDPD signal or post-DDPD signal with the Feedback signal and then compares that ratio to the expected gain to determine the gain offset. Because the gain offset error due to the RF Feedback may already be corrected if the gain is put in the feedback, the AGC gain offset measured is due to the RF Transmit Up Converter and PA system. This gain error can be corrected at the Post-DDPD Signal Conditioner or the RF Transmit Up Converter or both, in such a way that the signal entering to the DAC is maintained at the desirable level”. ¶0085, 700 is tapped off the PA signal output. Gain element 720 per ¶0086 for scaling feedback data, and a ADC 750 described in ¶0085)
Cai discloses select gain adjustment mechanism based on a difference between measured ADC input and expected ADC power, as well as ADC saturation threshold (¶0140, “ To assure no saturation on the ADC, the Gain Adjustment, g.sub.3 is set such that the largest rms signal level into the ADC is at the desired level”, i.e. ADC threshold is represented by a value and is taken into account, and the system is mindful not to cross such ADC saturation value. See also Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, preventing ADC saturation), however does not explicitly frame the gain controller involving a “switch point” for each of a plurality of worst case gain conditions ranging from a worst case minimum (-) gain condition to a worst case maximum (+) gain condition, or does Cai discloses adjusting gains for each of a plurality of gain states based on CNR thresholds.
Weissman, in the same field of gain dynamic adaptation, discloses a system/process for gain correction/adaptation with a AGC similar to Cai, with further framing of a gain switch point adjustment per ¶0033-0039, 0043, 0056, where in the gains are controlled using dynamic gain switch point selection with use of ADC input level to manage gains, wherein the adjustment of switch points for each of a plurality of gain stages (¶0034-0046, “switch points are denoted as SPxy with the x value denoting the mode and the y value denoting the switch point. In FIG. 4, each mode (mode 1 and mode 2) has six switch points. Gain states are denoted as G0 through G6 for mode 1 and G1 through G6 for mode 2”, ¶0035, “GC receiver starts at the highest gain state G0 for low input power levels (Pin) and transitions to successive gain states (G1, G2, G3, . . . ) at corresponding switch points (SP11, SP12, SP13 . . . ) as the input power level (Pin) increases”. See further ¶038, 0051). Weissman also discloses the operation is based on CNR threshold, see at least Fig. 2, 0030, wherein a flat ceiling of C/N ratio is used to judge outputs).
Weissman also disclose consideration of switch points corresponding to a plurality of gain condition per ¶0032, “ the high linearity mode and the high sensitivity mode. For example, the dual modes are: 1) high sensitivity mode for low power signals and weak or no jammers and 2) high linearity mode with moderate sensitivity for strong jammers (shown within the dash lines). FIG. 3 shows some example gain state values for the dual modes. For example, the high sensitivity mode includes gain state G0 at 20 dB with a noise figure of 1.4 dB. The high linearity mode includes five gain states, for example, G1 at 14.5 dB (with noise figure at 1.7 dB), G2 at 9.5 dB, G3 at 3 dB, G4 at -8.5 dB and G5 at -22 dB.”, and ¶035-0037 discusses selecting of switch points corresponding each of the gain conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Cai’s gain adjustment to adjust its gains with switch points adjustments as described in Weissman with C/N based method for multiple gain states. Given that Cai calculate offset between expected/measured signal strength, which implicitly involves ADC input comparison. Weissman reinforces this with AGC logic that select gain switch point to prevent ADC saturation, complementing Cai’s system to result to a dynamically gain selection in the feedback receiver based on feedback analysis at various levels, thus improving flexibility.
As to claim 19 which claims a device for adjusting gain (Fig. 6/13, ¶0083-0090, system/method with feedback loop and gain correction logic), comprising a plurality of means for performing method steps similar to claim 9 and is thus rejected by the same reasoning.
As to claim 26:
Cai discloses:
A communication device, (Fig. 6/13, ¶0083-0090, system/method with feedback loop and gain correction logic), comprising: a transmitter comprising a power amplifier configured to generate a transmit signal and a power coupler (PA 500, ¶0083, 0085, transmitter with PA to generate an amplified signal for transmission at a desired level, and a coupler); a feedback receiver comprising a gain element and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC); (Feedback path 700, ¶0085, 700 is tapped off the PA signal output. Gain element 720 per ¶0086 for scaling feedback data, and an ADC 750 described in ¶085)
the power coupler configured to provide a portion of the transmit signal to the feedback receiver; (¶0133, 0134, 0085, coupler is placed at the PA output which is used to tap off the PA output signal back to the feedback path for coefficient estimation and AGC control) and a processor and a memory operably coupled to the gain element; wherein the processor and memory are configured to select gain switch points for the gain element based on a difference between a measured actual ADC input power of the ADC and an expected ADC input power of the ADC. (¶0089, “ Processor within the Digital Feedback Processor 800 computes the ratio of the either the Pre-DDPD signal or post-DDPD signal with the Feedback signal and then compares that ratio to the expected gain to determine the gain offset. Because the gain offset error due to the RF Feedback may already be corrected if the gain is put in the feedback, the AGC gain offset measured is due to the RF Transmit Up Converter and PA system. This gain error can be corrected at the Post-DDPD Signal Conditioner or the RF Transmit Up Converter or both, in such a way that the signal entering to the DAC is maintained at the desirable level”. 0092, memory)
Cai discloses select gain adjustment mechanism based on a difference between measured ADC input and expected ADC power, as well as ADC saturation threshold (¶0140, “ To assure no saturation on the ADC, the Gain Adjustment, g.sub.3 is set such that the largest rms signal level into the ADC is at the desired level”, i.e. ADC threshold is represented by a value and is taken into account, and the system is mindful not to cross such ADC saturation value. See also Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, preventing ADC saturation), however does not explicitly frame the gain controller involving a “switch point” for each of a plurality of worst case gain conditions ranging from a worst case minimum (-) gain condition to a worst case maximum (+) gain condition, or does Cai discloses adjusting gains for each of a plurality of gain states based on CNR thresholds.
Weissman, in the same field of gain dynamic adaptation, discloses a system/process for gain correction/adaptation with a AGC similar to Cai, with further framing of a gain switch point adjustment per ¶0033-0039, 0043, 0056, where in the gains are controlled using dynamic gain switch point selection with use of ADC input level to manage gains, wherein the adjustment of switch points for each of a plurality of gain stages (¶0034-0046, “switch points are denoted as SPxy with the x value denoting the mode and the y value denoting the switch point. In FIG. 4, each mode (mode 1 and mode 2) has six switch points. Gain states are denoted as G0 through G6 for mode 1 and G1 through G6 for mode 2”, ¶0035, “GC receiver starts at the highest gain state G0 for low input power levels (Pin) and transitions to successive gain states (G1, G2, G3, . . . ) at corresponding switch points (SP11, SP12, SP13 . . . ) as the input power level (Pin) increases”. See further ¶038, 0051). Weissman also discloses the operation is based on CNR threshold, see at least Fig. 2, 0030, wherein a flat ceiling of C/N ratio is used to judge outputs).
Weissman also disclose consideration of switch points corresponding to a plurality of gain condition per ¶0032, “ the high linearity mode and the high sensitivity mode. For example, the dual modes are: 1) high sensitivity mode for low power signals and weak or no jammers and 2) high linearity mode with moderate sensitivity for strong jammers (shown within the dash lines). FIG. 3 shows some example gain state values for the dual modes. For example, the high sensitivity mode includes gain state G0 at 20 dB with a noise figure of 1.4 dB. The high linearity mode includes five gain states, for example, G1 at 14.5 dB (with noise figure at 1.7 dB), G2 at 9.5 dB, G3 at 3 dB, G4 at -8.5 dB and G5 at -22 dB.”, and ¶035-0037 discusses selecting of switch points corresponding each of the gain conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Cai’s gain adjustment to adjust its gains with switch points adjustments as described in Weissman with C/N based method for multiple gain states. Given that Cai calculate offset between expected/measured signal strength, which implicitly involves ADC input comparison. Weissman reinforces this with AGC logic that select gain switch point to prevent ADC saturation, complementing Cai’s system to result to a dynamically gain selection in the feedback receiver based on feedback analysis at various levels, thus improving flexibility.
As to claim 2:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the adjusted gain switch point is selected to be at a level that prevents ADC saturation. (Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, preventing ADC saturation. Weissman, ¶0033)
As to claim 3:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the adjusted gain switch point is selected to be at a level that reallocates excess ADC input margin. (Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, determining a level that preventing overshooting a saturation level as well as being too low, i.e. avoiding underuse/wasteful/overscalling which allow the system to reclaim unused margin in either case while saving power. Such fine line walking allows comfortable headroom before saturation so as gain can be increased to better utilize ADC range, i.e. boost power to noise ratio ,Weissman, ¶0033, 0037, 0039)
As to claim 4:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein for the worst case maximum (+) gain condition the adjusted gain switch point is selected to reduce carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and increase ADC saturation margin. (Cai, ¶0097, “If the signal level is too low, the signal will lose its precision. In both cases, the performance would be degraded. This scaler should be set so that the largest expected peak signal into the DDPD Engine is just below saturation. During operation, this scalar should not be changed, or if necessary, changed very slowly so as not to degrade performance”)
As to claim 5:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein for the worst case min (-) gain condition the adjusted gain switch point is selected to increase carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and reduce ADC saturation margin. (Cai, ¶126, reduces noise to minimize its effect on spectral emission, i.e. lower noise floor, thus increase CNR. ¶0093-0097, 0089, gains are adjusted to balance signal fidelity and prevent saturation, thus managing ADC and DAC saturation margin, i.e. reducing it if it’s too high)
As to claim 6:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the measured ADC input power is a function of coupling factor, signal power and gain variation with temperature. (Cai, ¶0085, “The input to the RF feedback system 700 is tapped off of the PA signal output, usually using an RF coupler. This signal is then converted to an IF signal, filtered, digitized with a high speed ADC, and finally processed digitally”, i.e. coupling factor of the RF coupler determines how much PA output is fed to the feedback path, and thus sets the input signal level to the ADC. ¶0097, 0086, show signal amplitude directly impact ADC input level, and the system thus adjust gains. ¶0085, “to correct the RF Feedback gain change over temperature, a thermal sensor is placed near the RF Feedback, so that the gain change can be determined based on the RF Feedback temperature” )
As to claim 7:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the adjusted gain switch point is based on a difference between a previous switch point and a difference between the measured ADC input power and the expected ADC input power. (in context of switch point in Weissman, Cai, ¶0161, “the gain of the system from digital input to TX output must be monitored and adjusted to keep the gain constant. This can be done in many ways but for the best mode, the gain adjustments should come after the DDPD engine and must be small changes (usually less than 0.05 dB steps) that occur periodically. In one embodiment, a TX/FB AGC Processor 860 monitors the gain and keeps it constant. Optimally at least ten DDPD Coefficient updates have occurred between changes in order to keep a good linearization solution as the gain is changed”, the history of previous gain level are kept and referenced/monitored over time, with difference such as 0.05dB. ¶0089, “ Processor within the Digital Feedback Processor 800 computes the ratio of the either the Pre-DDPD signal or post-DDPD signal with the Feedback signal and then compares that ratio to the expected gain to determine the gain offset. Because the gain offset error due to the RF Feedback may already be corrected if the gain is put in the feedback, the AGC gain offset measured is due to the RF Transmit Up Converter and PA system.)
As to claim 8:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor and memory are configured to adjust the switch point for the gain element based on the difference between a measured ADC input power and an expected ADC input power. (Duplicate limitation of independent claim. Again, see: Cai, ¶0089, “ Processor within the Digital Feedback Processor 800 computes the ratio of the either the Pre-DDPD signal or post-DDPD signal with the Feedback signal and then compares that ratio to the expected gain to determine the gain offset. Because the gain offset error due to the RF Feedback may already be corrected if the gain is put in the feedback, the AGC gain offset measured is due to the RF Transmit Up Converter and PA system. This gain error can be corrected at the Post-DDPD Signal Conditioner or the RF Transmit Up Converter or both, in such a way that the signal entering to the DAC is maintained at the desirable level”. Weissman, in the same field of gain dynamic adaptation, discloses a system/process for gain correction/adaptation with a AGC similar to Cai, with further framing of a gain switch point adjustment per ¶0033-0039, 0043, 0056, where in the gains are controlled using dynamic gain switch point selection with use of ADC input level to manage gain)
As to claim 10:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 9, further comprising adjusting the gain switch point to prevent ADC saturation. (Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, preventing ADC saturation. Weissman, ¶0033)
As to claim 11:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 9, further comprising adjusting the gain switch point to reallocate excess ADC input margin to carrier-to-noise (CNR). (Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, determining a level that preventing overshooting a saturation level as well as being too low, i.e. avoiding underuse/wasteful/overscaling which allow the system to reclaim unused margin in either case while saving power. Such fine line walking allows comfortable headroom before saturation so as gain can be increased to better utilize ADC range, i.e. boost power to noise ratio ,Weissman, ¶0033, 0037, 0039)
As to claim 12:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein for the worst case maximum (+) gain condition the gain switch point is selected to reduce excess carrier-to-noise (CNR) and increase ADC saturation margin. (Cai, ¶0097, “If the signal level is too low, the signal will lose its precision. In both cases, the performance would be degraded. This scaler should be set so that the largest expected peak signal into the DDPD Engine is just below saturation. During operation, this scalar should not be changed, or if necessary, changed very slowly so as not to degrade performance”)
As to claim 13:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein for for the worst case minimum (-) gain condition the gain switch point is selected to increase carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and reduce ADC saturation margin. (Cai, ¶126, reduces noise to minimize its effect on spectral emission, i.e. lower noise floor, thus increase CNR. ¶0093-0097, 0089, gains are adjusted to balance signal fidelity and prevent saturation, thus managing ADC and DAC saturation margin, i.e. reducing it if it’s too high)
As to claim 14:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein the measured actual ADC input power is a function of coupling factor, signal power and gain variation with temperature. (Cai, ¶0085, “The input to the RF feedback system 700 is tapped off of the PA signal output, usually using an RF coupler. This signal is then converted to an IF signal, filtered, digitized with a high speed ADC, and finally processed digitally”, i.e. coupling factor of the RF coupler determines how much PA output is fed to the feedback path, and thus sets the input signal level to the ADC. ¶0097, 0086, show signal amplitude directly impact ADC input level, and the system thus adjust gains. ¶0085, “to correct the RF Feedback gain change over temperature, a thermal sensor is placed near the RF Feedback, so that the gain change can be determined based on the RF Feedback temperature” )
As to claim 15:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein the gain switch point comprises the difference between an old switch point and the difference between the measured actual ADC input power and the expected ADC input power. (in context of switch point in Weissman, Cai, ¶0161, “the gain of the system from digital input to TX output must be monitored and adjusted to keep the gain constant. This can be done in many ways but for the best mode, the gain adjustments should come after the DDPD engine and must be small changes (usually less than 0.05 dB steps) that occur periodically. In one embodiment, a TX/FB AGC Processor 860 monitors the gain and keeps it constant. Optimally at least ten DDPD Coefficient updates have occurred between changes in order to keep a good linearization solution as the gain is changed”, the history of previous gain level are kept and referenced/monitored over time, with difference such as 0.05dB. ¶0089, “ Processor within the Digital Feedback Processor 800 computes the ratio of the either the Pre-DDPD signal or post-DDPD signal with the Feedback signal and then compares that ratio to the expected gain to determine the gain offset. Because the gain offset error due to the RF Feedback may already be corrected if the gain is put in the feedback, the AGC gain offset measured is due to the RF Transmit Up Converter and PA system.)
As to claim 16:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 9, wherein the gain switch point is associated with a gain element in a feedback receiver. (Weismann, 0043, gain control circuit. The gains are controlled using dynamic gain switch point selection with use of ADC input level to manage gain)
As to claim 17:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 9, further comprising: receiving a signal in a feedback path through a feedback receiver with a gain element; (Cai, feedback path 700, ¶0085, 700 is tapped off the PA signal output. Gain element 720 per ¶0086 for scaling feedback data, and an ADC 750 described in ¶085) and controlling the gain element using the adjusted gain switch point. (Cai, 0089, controlling gain element to adjust gains)
As to claim 18:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 17, further comprising adjusting a characteristic of a transmit path based on the signal received through the feedback path. (Cai, ¶0089, Processor within the Digital Feedback Processor 800 computes the ratio of the either the Pre-DDPD signal or post-DDPD signal with the Feedback signal and then compares that ratio to the expected gain to determine the gain offset. This gain error can be corrected at the Post-DDPD Signal Conditioner or the RF Transmit Up Converter or both, in such a way that the signal entering to the DAC is maintained at the desirable level)
As to claim 20:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 19, further comprising means for adjusting the gain switch point to prevent ADC saturation. . (Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, preventing ADC saturation. Weissman, ¶0033)
As to claim 21:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 19, further comprising means for adjusting the gain switch point to reallocate excess ADC input margin to carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR). ). (Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, determining a level that preventing overshooting a saturation level as well as being too low, i.e. avoiding underuse/wasteful/over scaling which allow the system to reclaim unused margin in either case while saving power. Such fine line walking allows comfortable headroom before saturation so as gain can be increased to better utilize ADC range, i.e. boost power to noise ratio ,Weissman, ¶0033, 0037, 0039)
As to claim 22:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 19, further comprising means for selecting the gain switch point to reduce excess carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and increase ADC saturation margin. (Cai, ¶0097, “If the signal level is too low, the signal will lose its precision. In both cases, the performance would be degraded. This scaler should be set so that the largest expected peak signal into the DDPD Engine is just below saturation. During operation, this scalar should not be changed, or if necessary, changed very slowly so as not to degrade performance”)
As to claim 23:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 19, further comprising means for selecting the gain switch point to increase carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and reduce ADC saturation margin. (Cai, ¶126, reduces noise to minimize its effect on spectral emission, i.e. lower noise floor, thus increase CNR. ¶0093-0097, 0089, gains are adjusted to balance signal fidelity and prevent saturation, thus managing ADC and DAC saturation margin, i.e. reducing it if it’s too high)
As to claim 24:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 19, wherein the measured actual ADC input power is a function of coupling factor, signal power and gain variation with temperature. (Cai, ¶0085, “The input to the RF feedback system 700 is tapped off of the PA signal output, usually using an RF coupler. This signal is then converted to an IF signal, filtered, digitized with a high speed ADC, and finally processed digitally”, i.e. coupling factor of the RF coupler determines how much PA output is fed to the feedback path, and thus sets the input signal level to the ADC. ¶0097, 0086, show signal amplitude directly impact ADC input level, and the system thus adjust gains. ¶0085, “to correct the RF Feedback gain change over temperature, a thermal sensor is placed near the RF Feedback, so that the gain change can be determined based on the RF Feedback temperature” )
As to claim 25:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 19, wherein the gain switch point comprises the difference between an old switch point and the difference between the measured actual ADC input power and the expected ADC input power. (in context of switch point in Weissman, Cai, ¶0161, “the gain of the system from digital input to TX output must be monitored and adjusted to keep the gain constant. This can be done in many ways but for the best mode, the gain adjustments should come after the DDPD engine and must be small changes (usually less than 0.05 dB steps) that occur periodically. In one embodiment, a TX/FB AGC Processor 860 monitors the gain and keeps it constant. Optimally at least ten DDPD Coefficient updates have occurred between changes in order to keep a good linearization solution as the gain is changed”, the history of previous gain level are kept and referenced/monitored over time, with difference such as 0.05dB. ¶0089, “ Processor within the Digital Feedback Processor 800 computes the ratio of the either the Pre-DDPD signal or post-DDPD signal with the Feedback signal and then compares that ratio to the expected gain to determine the gain offset. Because the gain offset error due to the RF Feedback may already be corrected if the gain is put in the feedback, the AGC gain offset measured is due to the RF Transmit Up Converter and PA system.)
As to claim 27:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 26, wherein the gain switch points that are selected are configured to prevent ADC saturation and to maintain a minimum carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR). (Cai, ¶0097, “If the signal level is too low, the signal will lose its precision. In both cases, the performance would be degraded. This scaler should be set so that the largest expected peak signal into the DDPD Engine is just below saturation. During operation, this scalar should not be changed, or if necessary, changed very slowly so as not to degrade performance”)
As to claim 28:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 26, wherein the selected gain switch points are configured to reallocate excess ADC input margin to carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR). (Cai, ¶0079, 0085-0089, determining a level that preventing overshooting a saturation level as well as being too low, i.e. avoiding underuse/wasteful/over scaling which allow the system to reclaim unused margin in either case while saving power. Such fine line walking allows comfortable headroom before saturation so as gain can be increased to better utilize ADC range, i.e. boost power to noise ratio ,Weissman, ¶0033, 0037, 0039)
As to claim 29:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 23, wherein for the worst case maximum (+) gain condition the selected gain switch points are selected to reduce excess carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and increase ADC saturation margin. (Cai, ¶0097, “If the signal level is too low, the signal will lose its precision. In both cases, the performance would be degraded. This scaler should be set so that the largest expected peak signal into the DDPD Engine is just below saturation. During operation, this scalar should not be changed, or if necessary, changed very slowly so as not to degrade performance”)
As to claim 30:
Cai in view of Weissman discloses all limitations of claim 23, wherein for the worst case minimum gain condition the selected gain switch points are selected to increase carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) and reduce ADC saturation margin. (Cai, ¶0161, “the gain of the system from digital input to TX output must be monitored and adjusted to keep the gain constant. This can be done in many ways but for the best mode, the gain adjustments should come after the DDPD engine and must be small changes (usually less than 0.05 dB steps) that occur periodically. ¶0097, the gain is selected such that it is at the most ideal value that satisfies fidelity level while preventing from hitting saturation point. )
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2003/0012313 - An embodiment of the present invention provides an automatic gain control system for a wireless receiver that quickly differentiates desired in-band signals from high power out-of-band signals that overlap into the target band. The system measures power before and after passing a received signal through a pair of finite impulse response filters that largely restrict the signal's power to that which is in-band. By comparing the in-band energy of the received signal after filtering to the total signal energy prior to filtering, it is possible to determine whether a new in-band signal has arrived. The presence of this new in-band signal is then verified by a multi-threshold comparison of the normalized self-correlation to verify the presence of a new, desired in-band signal..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645