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 01/22/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1 - 20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “245-b”, “245-d”, 255” and “265” in FIG 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “230” multiple times in paragraphs 0105 – 0106 of specification as filed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 2 – 5, 12, 13 and 15 – 18 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the transmitting" at the end of the claim. The antecedent basis for this limitation is not clear since “transmitting” is used in parent claim 1 with respect to “an indication of the power amplifier model”, as well as earlier in instant claim with respect to the first and second reference signals. So which of the previously recited “transmitting” (“an indication of the power amplifier model” or the first and second reference signals) it refers to?
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the power amplifier model of each transmitter antenna". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since parent claim 1 recites “a power amplifier model of each antenna group” not “each transmitter antenna”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the transmitting" at the end of the claim. The antecedent basis for this limitation is not clear since “transmit” is used in parent claim 14 with respect to “an indication of the power amplifier model”, as well as earlier in instant claim with respect to the first and second reference signals. So which of the previously recited “transmit” (“an indication of the power amplifier model” or the first and second reference signals) it refers to?
Claims 3 – 5, 13 and 16 – 18 are rejected as being dependent from the rejected base claims.
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190181895 (Nammi) in view of US 20190058545 (Chen) (of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Nammi teaches “A method for wireless communication at a network entity (FIG 1 and par. 0027 – 0028: a network node 106), comprising:
mapping each transmitter antenna of the network entity to one of a plurality of antenna groups based at least in part on a power amplifier response of each transmitter antenna (FIG 3 with corresponding description disclose plurality of antennas Ant 1 – 4 representing “each transmitter antenna of the network entity”. Paragraph 0041: The power amplifiers for antenna 302, 306, and 308 have non-linearities that are similar enough that the same DPD correction applied to antenna 302 can similarly be applied to antennas 306 and 308, while antenna 304 independently determines DPD coefficients since the non-linearities for the power amplifier to antenna 304 are different than they are for antennas 302, 306, and 308. Therefore, antennas 302, 306, and 308 are grouped together in an implicit first group, while antenna 304 is grouped in an implicit second group consisting of one member. This at least implicit grouping is done based on “a power amplifier response of each transmitter antenna”, as the claim requires); determining a power amplifier model for each antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups based at least in part on the power amplifier response of each transmitter antenna (power amplifier model is introduced in paragraphs 0034 – 0035 as digital pre-distortion (DPD). Paragraph 0041: the same DPD correction applied to antennas 302, 306 and 308 (“a power amplifier model for …[the first] antenna group”), while antenna 304 independently determines DPD coefficients (“a power amplifier model for …[the second] antenna group”). Particular steps of DPD determination are disclosed in paragraphs 0042 – 0045 and 0054 – 0064 with respect to FIG 7 and 8)…”
communicating with the UE based at least in part on at least one of the power amplifier models (implicit. Communication with user equipment is also disclosed in FIG 1 and paragraphs 0027 – 0035. The communication system uses power amplifier correction methods disclosed elsewhere in the disclosure).”
Nammi does not disclose “transmitting an indication of the power amplifier model for each antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups to a user equipment (UE).”
Chen teaches in paragraph 0053: at block 304, method 300 includes receiving, by the receiver device, one or more transmitter parameters corresponding to the transmission of the data packet signal, the one or more transmitter parameters including information to adjust the distorted signal. The information which may be included in transmitter parameters is disclosed in paragraph 0032 and may include a net effect value of digital pre-distortion (DPD) power amplification (PA) of the transmitter device. Paragraph 0044: The net effect value of DPD PA includes clipping, DPD, and PA modelling. Additional information with respect to PA model is given in paragraphs 0045 — 0047. Thus, Chen teaches “transmitting an indication of the power amplifier model” “to a user equipment (UE).”
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 Chen transmission, from the base station to the user equipment, of information regarding one or more transmitter parameters including digital pre-distortion (DPD) model, in the system of Nammi. Doing so would have allowed to eliminate any residual distortion and reconstruct the data packet signal based at least on the one or more transmitter parameters (see Chen, at least abstract).
Since the transmitter of the base station of Nammi has plurality of amplifier groups each having its own DPD, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize transmission of DPD of each amplifier group so that the receiver within the user equipment would have been able to more thoroughly perform reconstruction of the data packet.
Claims 2, 4, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190181895 (Nammi) in view of US 20190058545 (Chen) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 20180167091 (Pratt) evidenced by one or more of (US 20180351629 (Nilsson) or US 20210045158 (Yerramalli)).
Regarding claim 2 and 15, Nammi in combination with Chen does not teach “transmitting a first reference signal for a first antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups and a second reference signal for a second antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups, wherein communicating with the UE is based at least in part on the transmitting.”
Pratt also teaches grouping power amplifiers with the purpose of utilizing a single DPD for the group (see FIG 1 and 2 with corresponding description). Further, Pratt teaches creating a beam utilizing antennas and power amplifiers in the group, see FIG 2A and paragraphs 0019 – 0020 (The up-converted output providing a commonly-shared pre-distorted transmission signal can be coupled to a beam-forming circuit 114, to provide individualized weighted, beam-formed inputs to power amplifier circuit 116A, 116B, through 116B [read “116M”]), and paragraphs 0023 – 0025 for the arrangement of FIG 2B. In other words, Pratt teaches utilizing grouped arrangement of antennas and power amplifiers to form a beam.
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 Pratt capability of forming a beam by a group of antennas and power amplifiers that utilize a single grouped DPD, in the system of Nammi. Doing so would have expanded the capability of Nammi’s system by allowing it to utilize beamforming for communication with user equipment.
Since the system of Nammi has plurality of antennas groups, each connected to a respective power amplifier, so that each group utilizes its own respective DPD common for the amplifiers in the group, as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement disclosed by Pratt capability separately for each group of antennas and associated amplifiers so that each group of antennas and amplifiers would be capable of forming its own beam. Doing so would have even further expanded the capability of the system by allowing it to form plurality of beams corresponding to the plurality of antenna/amplifier groups.
Further, transmitting a reference signal per beam is well known in the art as may be evidenced by Nilsson (paragraph 0028 and FIG 2: network node 106 transmits a first reference signal (RS1) on beam 201 and transmits a second reference signal (RS2) on beam 102) or Yerramalli (paragraph 0085: the base station may transmit a DMRS [demodulation reference signal] for each beam on which the base station performs the downlink transmission, to facilitate demodulation and decoding of the downlink transmission at the UE.).
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 transmission of individual reference signal per beam, as is well-known in the art evidenced by Nilsson or Yerramalli, in the system of combined Nammi and Pratt’s disclosures. Doing so would have allowed the user equipment in communication with the network entity to determine the best beam from the set of candidate beams (see Nilsson, paragraph 0029) and/or perform demodulation and decoding of the downlink transmission (see Yerramalli, paragraph 0085).
In the device of combined Nammi and Pratt’s disclosures, as was explained above, each group of antennas and associated amplifiers will transmit its own beam which would include its own reference signal. Therefore, transmission of respective reference signal from each group of antennas and selection, by the user equipment, of the best beam based on the reference signals, or demodulation of the downlink transmission based on the reference signals would be the same as recited by the claim “transmitting a first reference signal for a first antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups and a second reference signal for a second antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups, wherein communicating with the UE is based at least in part on the transmitting.”
Regarding claim 4 and 17, Nammi in combination with Pratt teaches “using each transmitter antenna of a first group of antennas of the plurality of antenna groups to form a first beam associated with the first reference signal; and using each transmitter antenna of a second group of antennas of the plurality of antenna groups to form a second beam associated with the second reference signal, wherein communicating with the UE is based at least in part on the forming the first beam and the forming the second beam (indeed, in the rejection of claim 2 above it was shown the obviousness of combination of Pratt and Nammi in which each antenna group would form its own beam and each beam would have its own associated reference signal based on the reception of which the user equipment would select the best beam to communicate, or demodulate the downlink transmission, thus meeting the entirety of the claim).”
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190181895 (Nammi) in view of US 20190058545 (Chen) and US 20180167091 (Pratt) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of US 20210045158 (Yerramalli).
Regarding claim 5 and 18, Nammi in combination with Pratt does not teach “wherein the first reference signal, or the second reference signal, or both comprise a respective demodulation reference signal.”
Yerramalli in paragraph 0085 teaches that the base station may transmit a DMRS (“demodulation reference signal”) for each beam on which the base station performs the downlink transmission, to facilitate demodulation and decoding of the downlink transmission at the UE.
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 Yerramalli transmission of “demodulation reference signal” per each beam, in the system of combined Nammi and Pratt’s disclosures. Doing so would have allowed to facilitate demodulation and decoding of the downlink transmission at the UE (see Yerramalli, paragraph 0085).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190181895 (Nammi) in view of US 20190058545 (Chen) and US 20180167091 (Pratt) as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of US 20220201736 (Park).
Regarding claim 3 and 16, Nammi in combination with Pratt does not teach “further comprising: frequency domain multiplexing a first antenna port of the first reference signal with a second antenna port of the second reference signal, wherein communicating with the UE is based at least in part on the frequency domain multiplexing.”
As was explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, Nammi in combination with Pratt teaches or fairly suggests transmission of plurality of beams from different antenna groups, each beam having associated reference signal.
On the other side, Park in paragraph 0218 teaches transmission of a plurality of beams multiplexed in the frequency domain.
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 Park transmission of plurality of beams multiplexed in the frequency domain, in the system of Nammi and Pratt. Doing so would have allowed transmission of multiple beams at the same time (see Park, paragraph 0218).
Since in the system of Nammi and Pratt different beams are transmitted from different antenna groups, each beam having associated reference signal, when combined with the teaching of Park, the first beam with the first reference signal transmitted from the first group of antennas (“a first antenna port of the first reference signal”) and the second beam with the second reference signal transmitted from the second group of antennas (“a second antenna port of the second reference signal”) would have been multiplexed in the frequency domain, as the claim requires.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190181895 (Nammi) in view of US 20190058545 (Chen) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of information well known in the art as may be evidenced by US 20180199251 (Kim).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Nammi in combination with Chen teaches or fairly suggests “further comprising: transmitting, to the UE, each power amplifier model for each antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups…” “… wherein communicating with the UE is based at least in part on the transmitting (Chen, paragraph 0053: receiving, by the receiver device, one or more transmitter parameters. The information which may be included in transmitter parameters is disclosed in paragraph 0032 and may include a net effect value of digital pre-distortion (DPD) power amplification (PA) of the transmitter device. Paragraph 0044: The net effect value of DPD PA includes clipping, DPD, and PA modelling.)…”
Nammi in combination with Chen does not teach “wherein the indication of the power amplifier model is transmitted in a radio resource control message.”
However, transmitting various configuration parameters in radio resource control message is well-known in the art, as may be evidenced by Kim, paragraph 0199.
Therefore, since Chen does not disclose specific method of sending transmitters parameters to the user equipment, 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 Chen transmission of transmitter parameters, including DPD, in a resource control message, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being simply utilizing a message format which is well known in the art, 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). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the answer depends on “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. Additionally, design choices that do not “result in a difference in function or give unexpected results . . . are no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in the art.” In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965).
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- utilizing specifically radio resource control message to transmit power amplifier model) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990). In fact, usage of radio resource control message is given in the Applicant’s specification as one of the plurality of choices (see Applicant’s specification, paragraph 0114).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190181895 (Nammi) in view of US 20190058545 (Chen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220166389 (Hamid) (of record).
Regarding claim 10, Nammi in combination with Chen does not teach “converting a first power amplifier model of a first antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups into a first list of kernels; and converting a second power amplifier model of a second antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups into a second list of kernels.”
Hamid in paragraph 0065, 0067, 0091, 0095, 0131 and 0133 teaches that DPD use kernel regression to perform DPD in the MIMO transmitter per branch or using various combining schemes. Further, paragraph 0076 teaches the DPD system generating a kernel regression matrix (this matrix thus includes recited by the claim “a first list of kernels”) for each branch. Paragraph 0107 teaches that the combined DPD system 510 in FIG 5 generates a kernel regression matrix for the L antenna branches 502-1 to 502-L. Paragraph 0144 teaches that the combined MIMO DPD system 1206-s for the s-th group of antenna branches generates a kernel regression matrix for the S antenna branches in the s-th group of antenna branches (step 1412). In the latter case, as may be seen from FIG 12, there are multiple antenna groups 1 through L, each group having its own DPD 1206. Thus, a kernel regression matrix is separately generated for each antenna group, and since each matrix corresponds to recited by the claim “list of kernels”, this arrangement results in generation of “a first list of kernels” corresponding to DPD 1206-1 (“a first power amplifier model of a first antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups”) and “a second list of kernels” corresponding to DPD 1206-2 (“a second power amplifier model of a second antenna group of the plurality of antenna groups”).
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 Hamid generation of individual kernel matrices (“list of kernels”) for each DPD of grouped antennas, in the system of Nammi simply as design choice of what type of amplifier model to use 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). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the answer depends on “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. Additionally, design choices that do not “result in a difference in function or give unexpected results . . . are no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in the art.” In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965).
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- utilizing specifically list of kernels) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990). In fact, usage of list of kernels is given in the Applicant’s specification as one of the plurality of choices (see Applicant’s specification, paragraph 0096 versus paragraph 0098 that discloses usage of basis functions as an alternative).
Regarding claim 11, Nammi in combination with Chen and Hamid teach or fairly suggest “wherein transmitting the indication of the power amplifier model of each antenna group comprises: transmitting at least the first list of kernels and the second list of kernels to the UE (indeed, as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Chen in paragraph 0053 teaches receiving, by the receiver device, one or more transmitter parameters. The information which may be included in transmitter parameters is disclosed in paragraph 0032 and may include a net effect value of digital pre-distortion (DPD) power amplification (PA) of the transmitter device. Paragraph 0044: The net effect value of DPD PA includes DPD, and PA modelling. Therefore, when the plurality of grouped DPD for the plurality of antenna groups are expressed as kernel matrices (each comprising respective “list of kernels”), their transmission to the user equipment means that plurality of “lists of kernels” is transmitted to the user equipment, or using the language of the claim, “transmitting at least the first list of kernels and the second list of kernels to the UE”).”
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190181895 (Nammi) in view of US 20190058545 (Chen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of alternatively (US 20120119811 (Bai) or US 20140292406 (Dechen)).
Regarding claim 12, Nammi in combination with Chen does not teach “wherein determining the power amplifier model of each antenna group comprises: projecting coefficients of the power amplifier model of each transmitter antenna onto a reduced set of basis functions; and determining a matrix of basis functions based at least in part on the projecting.”
Bai teaches digital predistorter circuits with selectable basis function configurations (see abstract) that are used for power amplifiers (see FIG 1 with corresponding description). Configurable connection coefficients are used to construct the orthogonal basis functions (also in abstract). Paragraph 0040 discloses a generalized multi-branch distortion model 300 shown in FIG 3 representing the distortion introduced by the power amplifier 120 (e.g., as modeled by model coefficient evaluation unit 210 in the direct learning architecture of FIG. 2). The distortion model 300 comprises a structure 310 having P output taps. Each of these output taps represents an operation on the input signal x(n)--these operations may correspond to a predetermined basis function set. This corresponds to the recited by the claim “projecting coefficients of the power amplifier model of each transmitter antenna onto a … set of basis functions.” With respect to FIG 5 and paragraph 0046, Bai teaches “determining a matrix of basis functions based at least in part on the projecting (disclosed as a matrix U, comprising N observations of the outputs of power basis function set 500, can be formed and fitted to a desired output signal vector d to determine the weighting coefficients w that most closely model the desired distortion function.).” Further, with respect to FIG 6 and paragraph 0047, a given ensemble of coefficients identifies a particular orthogonal basis function set (another instance of “projecting coefficients of the power amplifier model of each transmitter antenna onto a … set of basis functions”). Paragraphs 0050, 0053 and 0054 give additional examples of “determining a matrix of basis functions based at least in part on the projecting.” Finally, paragraph 0056 teaches that because matrix computations can be quite complex, an important goal in the design of a distortion model for a power amplifier or a predistorter is to provide the coefficient evaluation algorithm with a data matrix that has a relatively small number of columns (to reduce the computational complexity of the matrix operations), and since the matrix consists of basis functions, it means that the set of basis functions is “reduced”, as is required by the claim. This is further reinforced in paragraph 0060.
In other words, Bai in the paragraphs cited above as well as throughout the disclosure teaches “projecting coefficients of the power amplifier model of each transmitter antenna onto a reduced set of basis functions; and determining a matrix of basis functions based at least in part on the projecting.”
Alternatively, Dechen also teaches modeling mathematically an effect of a plurality of factors on signal distortion caused by a non-linear amplifier (see abstract). Paragraph 0023: Coefficients ai define the predistortion of the transmission signal (“coefficients of the power amplifier model”), and they may be computed such that the predistortion compensates for the distortion caused by the power amplifier 116. Paragraph 0025: FIG. 3 illustrates an equivalent block diagram for Equation (6), wherein the coefficients a0,0 to ai,u are computed to compensate for the distortion caused by the working conditions affecting the power amplifier (“coefficients of the power amplifier model”). Elements 340, 360 represent base functions that are used to represent any non-linear memory function of the input signal x. Each base function 340, 360 is multiplied by a respective coefficients a0,0 to ai,u (“projecting coefficients of the power amplifier model of each transmitter antenna onto a … set of basis functions”). Paragraph 0029: expressing the equation comprising basis functions in a matrix form X (“determining a matrix of basis functions based at least in part on the projecting”). Paragraph 0033 deals with reduction of the matrix X comprising basis functions to reduce the computational complexity, therefore, “a reduced set of basis functions.”
In other words, Dechen in the paragraphs cited above as well as throughout the disclosure teaches “projecting coefficients of the power amplifier model of each transmitter antenna onto a reduced set of basis functions; and determining a matrix of basis functions based at least in part on the projecting.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to take the disclosed by Bai or Dechen generation of the reduced set of basis functions, based on the amplifier model coefficients, and their corresponding matrix for a single digital predistortion model, and utilize it for each DPD of grouped antennas, in the system of Nammi simply as design choice of what type of amplifier model to use 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). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the answer depends on “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. Additionally, design choices that do not “result in a difference in function or give unexpected results . . . are no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in the art.” In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965).
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- utilizing specifically matrix of basis functions) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990). In fact, usage of basis functions is given in the Applicant’s specification as one of the plurality of choices (see Applicant’s specification, paragraph 0098 versus paragraph 0096 that discloses usage of list of kernels as an alternative).
Regarding claim 13, Nammi in combination with Chen and Bai or Dechen teach or fairly suggest “wherein transmitting the indication of the power amplifier model of each antenna group comprises: transmitting the matrix of basis functions to the UE (indeed, as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Chen in paragraph 0053 teaches receiving, by the receiver device, one or more transmitter parameters. The information which may be included in transmitter parameters is disclosed in paragraph 0032 and may include a net effect value of digital pre-distortion (DPD) power amplification (PA) of the transmitter device. Paragraph 0044: The net effect value of DPD PA includes DPD, and PA modelling. Therefore, when each of the plurality of grouped DPD for the plurality of antenna groups is expressed as matrix of basis functions, their transmission to the user equipment means that plurality of “matrices of basis functions” is transmitted to the user equipment, or using the language of the claim, “transmitting the matrix of basis functions to the UE”).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 9 and 20 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.
Conclusion
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 on 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