DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 is directed to abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 1 recites series of acts for generating, receiving, digitizing and convolving. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, the claimed generating, digitizing and convolving steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps processes found by the courts (e.g. mathematical concepts and metal process). The broadest reasonable interpretation of digitizing, generating inverse transfer function, and convolving encompasses mathematical concepts (e.g., rounding data values) that can be performed mentally (Prong One). The claimed receiving step is directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps processes found by the courts (e.g. data gathering) to be abstract ideas in that related to collect a necessary input that is insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-activity solution). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claimed “inverse transfer function stored in a memory” and “generate a digital output RF signal” steps are merely a post-solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory and transmitting data output, an insignificant addition to the claim that do not meaningfully limit the claim. (Prong Two). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the additional limitations left in the claim are “RF receiver” and “memory”. The claimed “RF receiver” and “memory” are merely devices that the judicial exception being applied to. Treating claim 1 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements to the “RF receiver” and “memory”) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-7:
Claims 2-7, respectively, depend on claim 1 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 1. Thus, claims 2-7 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is directed to abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 8 recites a system comprising a radio frequency receiver. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, the claimed generating, digitizing and convolving steps are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps processes found by the courts (e.g. mathematical concepts and metal process). The broadest reasonable interpretation of digitizing, generating inverse transfer function, and convolving encompasses mathematical concepts (e.g., rounding data values) that can be performed mentally (Prong One). The claimed receiving step is directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps processes found by the courts (e.g. data gathering) to be abstract ideas in that related to collect a necessary input that is insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-activity solution). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claimed “storing inverse the transfer function in a memory” and “generate a digital output RF signal” steps are merely a post-solution activity of storing and retrieving information in memory and transmitting data output, an insignificant addition to the claim that do not meaningfully limit the claim. (Prong Two). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the additional limitations left in the claim are RF receiver, conditioning circuit, RF filters, memory and a processor. The claimed RF receiver, conditioning circuit, RF filters, memory and a processor are merely devices that the judicial exception being applied to. Treating claim 8 as a whole, the additional limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception (e.g. improvements to the RF receiver, conditioning circuit, RF filters, memory and a processor) or do not provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 8 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 9-10:
Claims 9-10, respectively, depend on claim 8 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 8. Thus, claims 9-10 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 8.
5. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantyne et al. (US 20090195426) (hereinafter Ballantyne) in view of Leyendecker et al. (US 5867065) (hereinafter Leyendecker).
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
As shown in figures 1-11, Ballantyne discloses a system (see figures 7 and 11) comprising:
a radio frequency (RF) receiver (1112 in figure 11) (in par 0092 Ballantyne teaches “A device may be (i) a stand-alone IC, (ii) a set of one or more ICs that may include memory ICs for storing data and/or instructions, (iii) an RFIC such as an RF receiver (RFR) or an RF transmitter/receiver (RTR)”) configured to receive an analog input RF signal (figure 11 shows RF receiver 1112 receives an analog input RF signal. Par 0086, 0088, 0092) comprising:
a signal conditioning circuit (see figures 4-7) including one or more RF filters (350, 550, 750 in figures 4-7 respectively);
at least one memory (1128 in figure 11); and
at least one processor (1125 in figure 11) configured and at least one memory (1128 in figure 11), the at least one processor (1125 in figure 11) configured to perform steps of:
receiving an inverse transfer function of a first state of a predicted plurality of states of the signal conditioning circuit (see M(s) function in figures 4-7) (par 0043-0057);
receiving an analog input RF signal (figure 7 shows ADC 780 receives an analog input signal y(t)) (par 0008-0009, see equations 3-5, par 0041-0049);
digitizing the analog input RF signal, wherein digitizing the analog input RF signal generates a digital input RF signal (see v(n) in figure 7, par 0008); and
convolving (790 in figure 7) the digital input RF signal (v(n) in figure 7) with the inverse transfer function (u(n), e(n) and s(n) in figure 7) to generate a digital output RF signal (par 0059).
Ballantyne discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching storing the inverse transfer function in a memory.
However, Leyendecker in the same field of endeavor teaches storing the inverse transfer function in a memory (figure 3, col 2, lines 33-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use look-up table (LUT) as taught by Leyendecker to modify the system and method of Ballantyne in order to store a corresponding complex value that approximates the local inverse of the transfer characteristic of the power amplifier (col 2, lines 8-14) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 11:
As shown in figures 1-11, Ballantyne discloses a method comprising:
wherein the RF transmitter (see figures 7 and 11) comprises a signal conditioning circuit (see figures 4-7),
obtaining digital transmission RF data corresponding to the RF transmission (see the output of ADC 780 in figure 7) (par 0008);
determining a current state of the signal conditioning circuit (see M(s) function in figures 4-7) (par 0043-0057);
convolving (790 in figure 7) the digital transmission data with the inverse transfer function (u(n), e(n) and s(n) in figure 7) associated with the current state to generate a digital output RF signal (par 0008-0009, see equations 3-5, par 0041-0049, 0059);
converting the digital output RF signal to an analog output RF signal (see the output of DAC 1132 in figure 11) (par 0004, 0025); and
transmitting (1110 in figure 11) the analog output RF signal (figure 11 shows analog output RF signal being transmitted via antenna 1110) (par 0086).
Ballantyne discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching for reducing distortion of a radio frequency (RF) transmission in a distorted environment; generating a lookup table comprising inverse transfer functions in a memory of a RF transmitter; accessing the lookup table; extracting an inverse transfer function corresponding to the current state.
However, Leyendecker in the same field of endeavor teaches for reducing distortion of a radio frequency (RF) transmission in a distorted environment (abstract); generating a lookup table (see LUT in figures 2-3, 5-8) comprising inverse transfer functions in a memory of a RF transmitter (figure 3, col 2, lines 33-47); accessing the lookup table (see LUT in figures 2-3, 5-8); extracting an inverse transfer function corresponding to the current state (figure 3, col 1, lines 62-67, col 2, lines 33-47, col 3, lines 1-24, claims 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use look-up table (LUT) as taught by Leyendecker to modify the system and method of Ballantyne in order to store a corresponding complex value that approximates the local inverse of the transfer characteristic of the power amplifier (col 2, lines 8-14) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 2 and 12:
Ballantyne discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching measuring a transfer function associated with one state of a predicted plurality of states of a signal conditioning circuit of the RF receiver; reporting the transfer function; calculating an inverse transfer function based on the transfer function; and storing the inverse transfer function in the memory of the receiver.
However, Leyendecker in the same field of endeavor teaches measuring a transfer function associated with one state of a predicted plurality of states of a signal conditioning circuit of the RF receiver (col 9, lines 66-67, col 10, lines 1-15); reporting the transfer function (see the output signal in figures 2, 6-8); calculating an inverse transfer function based on the transfer function; and storing the inverse transfer function in the memory of the receiver (figures 3, 6-8, col 1, lines 62-67, col 2, lines 33-47, col 3, lines 1-24, claims 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use look-up table (LUT) as taught by Leyendecker to modify the system and method of Ballantyne in order to store a corresponding complex value that approximates the local inverse of the transfer characteristic of the power amplifier (col 2, lines 8-14) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 3 and 9:
Ballantyne further discloses before convolving the digital input RF signal, determining a current state of the signal conditioning circuit (see M(s) function in figures 4-7) (par 0043-0057); wherein convolving (790 in figure 7) the digital input RF signal with the inverse transfer function (u(n), e(n) and s(n) in figure 7) (par 0059) further comprises convolving the digital input RF signal with the inverse transfer function from the lookup table (figure 7 shows convolving the digital input RF signal produced by ADC 780 with the inverse transfer function from the lookup table) corresponding to the analog input RF signal or digital RF signal (see the digital output signal produced by ADC 780).
Ballantyne discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching storing the inverse transfer function in a lookup table, wherein the method further comprises: accessing the lookup table; and extracting an inverse transfer function from the lookup table associated with the current state of the signal conditioning circuit, wherein convolving the digital input RF signal with the inverse transfer function further comprises convolving the digital input RF signal with the inverse transfer function from the lookup table corresponding to the analog input RF signal or digital RF signal.
However, Leyendecker in the same field of endeavor teaches storing the inverse transfer function in a lookup table (figure 3, col 2, lines 33-47), wherein the method further comprises: accessing the lookup table (see LUT in figures 2-3, 5-8); and extracting an inverse transfer function from the lookup table associated with the current state of the signal conditioning circuit (figure 3, col 1, lines 62-67, col 2, lines 33-47, col 3, lines 1-24, claims 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use look-up table (LUT) as taught by Leyendecker to modify the system and method of Ballantyne in order to store a corresponding complex value that approximates the local inverse of the transfer characteristic of the power amplifier (col 2, lines 8-14) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 9:
Ballantyne further discloses adapting an RF filter (750 in figure 7) based on a first state or the inverse transfer function (see the outputs (u(n) and e(n) of model circuit 740 and adder 742 in figure 7) associated with the current state (par 0007-0008, 0037-0040).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4-7, 10 and 14-15 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 and overcome the above 35 USC 101 rejection.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Ballantyne does not teach or suggest filtering the analog input RF signal within an RF spectrum, wherein filtering the analog input RF signal comprises: before digitizing the analog input RF signal, sensing the RF spectrum; and before convolving the digital input RF signal, altering the inverse transfer function based on a status of the RF spectrum.
The prior art of record, Ballantyne also does not teach or suggest before converting the digital output RF signal to an analog output RF signal, reconstructing the digital RF signal via the RF filter, wherein reconstructing a digital RF signal via the RF filter reduces Nyquist artifacts in the analog output RF signal.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Staszewski et al. (US 20040151257) disclose a system for calibrating a digital predistorter in an integrated transceiver circuit. The transmitter path includes a digital predistorter that predistorts the digital input to mitigate nonlinearities associated with a power amplifier. The integrated transceiver circuit further includes a receiver path associated with the digital transmitter path. A coupling element provides the signal from the transmitter path to the receiver path. A signal evaluator determines values for at least one parameter associated with the digital predistorter based on the signal.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631