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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11, 14. is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 6.934,511 (Lovinggood, et al).
Lovinggood, et al discloses a network-controlled repeater (figures 5 and 6, column 4, line 51 to column 7, line 16) comprising a first transmission pathway (#160, 190, 196, 162, column 4 line 51 to column 6, line 3) configured to amplify (#190, 198, column 5, lines 4-22) a first signal received from at least a first antenna port (#132, column 5, line 51 to column 6, line 3) and transmitted by at least a second antenna port (#132, column 5, line 51 to column 6, line 3). A second transmission pathway (#162, 190, 194, 198, 160, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3) configured to amplify (#190, 198, column 5, lines 4-22) a second signal received from at least the second antenna port (#132, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3) and transmitted by at least the first antenna port(#132, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3). A feedback pathway (#132, 208, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3) to modify the first signal associated with the first transmission pathway(#160, 190, 196, 162, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3) and a controller (#210, 206, column 6, line 47 to column 7, line 7) configured to: cause the first signal to be propagated and amplified along the first transmission pathway (#160, 190, 196, 162, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3) cause the second signal to be propagated and amplified along the second transmission pathway, (#162, 190, 194, 198, 160, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3) and cause a self-interference cancelling signal to be propagated along the feedback pathway (#132, 208, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3) to modify the first signal associated with the first transmission pathway (#160, 190, 196, 162, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3). The second transmission pathway (#162, 190, 194, 198, 160, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3) is reused for the feedback pathway (#132, 208, column 4, line 51 to column 6, line 3, column 12, line 50 to column 13, line 5, column 13, lines 24-39).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, figures 12, 14, 20, column 6, line 63 to column 7, line 16 shows the controller is configured to control a relative phase between the first signal and the self-interference cancelling signal.
PNG
media_image2.png
401
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 4, #208, column 5, lines 52-column 6, lines 47 to column 7, lines 7, discloses the controller is configured to control the relative phase between the first signal and the self-interference cancelling signal, wherein the control of the relative phase comprises controlling a phase of the first signal and/or a phase of the self-interference cancelling signal and the controller is configured to control a phase of the first signal in the feedback pathway and/or is configured to control a phase of the first signal in the first transmission pathway.
PNG
media_image3.png
236
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, figure 20, column 6, line 63 and column 7, line 7 shows first antenna element and a second antenna element, and at least a first phase shifter and a second phase shifter, wherein the first phase shifter is configured to control a phase of at least a part of the first signal received by the first antenna element and/or is configured to control at least a part of the second signal transmitted by the first antenna element, and the second phase shifter is configured to control a phase of at least a part of the first signal transmitted by the second antenna element and/or at least a part of the second signal received by the second antenna element.
PNG
media_image4.png
225
427
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, #160, 162, column 4, line 51 to column 5, column 6, line 2 shows a first coupler and a second coupler configured to cause the first signal to be propagated and amplified, wherein the first coupler is shared between the first transmission pathway and the second transmission pathway and the second coupler is shared between the first transmission pathway and the second transmission pathway.
PNG
media_image5.png
612
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, #160, 190, 196, 198, 190, 194, 198, column 4, line 51 to column 5, column 6, line 2, shows switching circuitry to enable alternate use of the first coupler for out-coupling from the first transmission pathway and in-coupling to the second transmission pathway and, synchronized, alternate use of the second coupler for in-coupling to the first transmission pathway and out-coupling from the second transmission pathway.
Regarding 14, #160, 190, 196, 198, 162, 190, 194, 198, 20, column 4, line 51 to column 5, column 6, line 2, shows a second feedback pathway to modify the second signal associated with the second transmission pathway, and the controller is further configured to cause a second self-interference cancelling signal to be propagated along the second feedback pathway to modify the second signal associated with the second transmission pathway. The first transmission pathway is reused for the second feedback pathway.
Regarding claim 5, note figures 3, 21, 23, column 10, lines 11-33 which discloses the controller is configured to control a phase of the first signal in the feedback pathway or is configured to control a phase of the first signal in the first transmission pathway.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent 6.934,511 (Lovinggood, et al) in view of JP-3670254-B2.
Lovinggood, et al discloses all subject matter, except for the controller is configured to independently control a relative phase between the first signal and the self-interference cancelling signal and an amplitude of the self-interference cancelling signal to produce self-interference cancelation and the controller is configured to control a relative phase between the first signal and the self-interference cancelling signal and an amplitude of the self-interference cancelling signal to optimize self-interference cancelation. JP-3670254-B2 teaches the use of a controller is configured to independently control a relative phase between the first signal and the self-interference cancelling signal and an amplitude of the self-interference cancelling signal to produce self-interference cancelation and the controller is configured to control a relative phase between the first signal and the self-interference cancelling signal and an amplitude of the self-interference cancelling signal to optimize self-interference cancelation for the purpose of reducing a wraparound interference signal, note ¶14. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of a controller is configured to independently control a relative phase between the first signal and the self-interference cancelling signal and an amplitude of the self-interference cancelling signal to produce self-interference cancelation and the controller is configured to control a relative phase between the first signal and the self-interference cancelling signal and an amplitude of the self-interference cancelling signal to optimize self-interference cancelation for the purpose of reducing a wraparound interference signal, as taught by JP-3670254-B2 in the network-controlled repeater of Lovinggood, et al in order to reduce an interference signal due to a wraparound of a transmission signal to a reception antenna when the reception signal is output as a transmission signal without modulation / demodulation.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious the claimed repeater is configured to receive a reference signal, and the controller is configured to control self-interference cancelation based on a comparison between the received reference signal and an expected reference signal. In combination with network-controlled repeater comprising a first transmission pathway configured to amplify a first signal received from at least a first antenna port and transmitted by at least a second antenna port. A second transmission pathway configured to amplify a second signal received from at least the second antenna port and transmitted by at least the first antenna port. A feedback pathway to modify the first signal associated with the first transmission pathway and a controller configured to cause the first signal to be propagated and amplified along the first transmission pathway. Cause the second signal to be propagated and amplified along the second transmission pathway and cause a self-interference cancelling signal to be propagated along the feedback pathway to modify the first signal associated with the first transmission pathway. The second transmission pathway is reused for the feedback pathway.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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 S. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights