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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 03/21/2024 has been considered and placed of record in the file.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath or Declaration is being considered by examiner and complies with PTO requirements.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, “a signal impairment” should be changed to – the signal impairment – in lines 2-3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a feedback selection unit configured to select in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrey et al. US 2020/0099347 in view of Chekhovstov et al. US 2011/0274210.
Consider claim 1, Andrey discloses An apparatus for managing radio frequency signal coupling (see FIG. 4), comprising:
a pre-distortion processing apparatus (see FIG. 4 and ¶ [0071]) comprising a plurality of transceiver chains (see FIG. 3-4 and ¶ [0068], combination of M transmit channels and receive channel as transceiver chains), wherein the plurality of transceiver chains comprises a plurality of transmit chains (see FIG. 3-4 and ¶ [0068], M transmit channels), and wherein each of the plurality of transmit chains comprises:
a power amplifier (see FIG. 4, power amplifier (PA)) communicatively coupled to the baseband signal (see FIG. 4, wherein the PA communicatively coupled to the baseband signal via mixer, DAC, second pre-distortion part, and first pre-distortion part), wherein the power amplifier is configured to:
receive a modified input signal from the baseband signal (see FIG. 4 and ¶ [0073], wherein the baseband signal is modified by the first pre-distortion part and the second pre-distortion part, before input into the power amplifier); and
amplify the modified input signal to generate an output signal having an output power (see FIG. 4 and ¶ [0073], wherein the power amplifier amplify the modified input signal to generate an output signal to antenna), wherein the modified input signal is generated based on a predetermined set of coupling coefficients (see FIG. 4 and ¶ [0073], wherein the modified input signal is generated based on the N sets of pre-distortion parameters from the solving part);
wherein the pre-distortion processing apparatus is configured to:
based on the baseband signal and at least one feedback signal, compute the predetermined set of coupling coefficients for each of the plurality of transmit chains (see FIG. 4 and ¶ [0073], wherein the solving part compute the N set of pre-distortion parameters based on the baseband signal and the feedback signal); and
based on the determined set of coupling coefficients, pre-process an input signal to generate the modified input signal to be transmitted via each of the plurality of transmit chains such that the modified input signal nullifies a signal impairment due to radio frequency signal coupling between any two transmit chains in the plurality of transmit chains (see FIG. 4 and ¶ [0005-0006] and [0073], wherein the first pre-distortion part configured to receive xth DPD processor input signal and the N sets of pre-distortion parameters, to generate the xth second baseband signal i.e. modified signal to be transmitted via each transmit channel such that the signal amplification on transmit channels in a multi-antenna sending apparatus is linear).
However Andrey does not explicitly disclose a baseband processor and a reference signal. Chekhovstov teaches a baseband processor (see FIG. 1 and ¶ [0008], wherein the Digital Signal Processor (DSP) 117 receives baseband TX signal) and a reference signal (see ¶ [0042], wherein the baseband transmission signal i.e. the reference signal). Chekhovstov further discloses improving the accuracy of time aligning signals that are used for computation the digital pre-distorter parameters needed to linearize the power amplifier (see ¶ [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Andrey, and to include a baseband processor and a reference signal, as taught by Chekhovstov for the purpose of improving the accuracy of time aligning signals that are used for computation the digital pre-distorter parameters needed to linearize the power amplifier.
Consider claim 3, Andrey discloses a coupler configured to generate the at least one feedback signal based on the reference signal (see FIG. 4, coupling part configured to generate feedback signal).
Consider claim 7, Andrey discloses wherein the modified input signal is based on the computed predetermined set of coupling coefficients for each of the plurality of transmit chains (see FIG. 4 and ¶ [0073], wherein the output of the second pre-distortion part i.e. modified input signal, is based on the computed predetermined set of coupling coefficients i.e. the N set of pre-distortion parameters, for each of the plurality of transmit channels).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrey et al. US 2020/0099347 in view of Chekhovstov et al. US 2011/0274210 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai et al. US 2025/0211411.
Consider claim 9, Andrey in view of Chekhovstov discloses every claimed limitation in claim 1.
However Andrey in view of Chekhovstov does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of transceiver chains comprises a plurality of receive chains, and wherein the baseband processor is configured to nullify a signal impairment due to radio frequency signal coupling between any two receive chains in the plurality of receive chains. Cai teaches wherein the plurality of transceiver chains comprises a plurality of receive chains, and wherein the baseband processor is configured to nullify a signal impairment due to radio frequency signal coupling between any two receive chains in the plurality of receive chains (see FIG. 4, and ¶ [0005], wherein the plurality of transceiver chains comprises a plurality of receive chains to reduce interference between uplink and downlink signals based on a combination of separation of transmit and receive antenna arrays and linear cancellation processing). Cai further discloses reducing interference between uplink and downlink signals based on a combination of separation of transmit and receive antenna arrays and linear cancellation processing (see ¶ [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Andrey in view of Chekhovstov, and to include wherein the plurality of transceiver chains comprises a plurality of receive chains, and wherein the baseband processor is configured to nullify a signal impairment due to radio frequency signal coupling between any two receive chains in the plurality of receive chains, as taught by Cai for the purpose of reduce interference between uplink and downlink signals based on a combination of separation of transmit and receive antenna arrays and linear cancellation processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Claims 2, 4-6, and 8 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:
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is drawn to A method for managing radio frequency signal coupling, comprising: transmitting, by a baseband processor, in each of a plurality of transmit chains, a modified input signal to a power amplifier, wherein the modified input signal is generated based on a predetermined set of coupling coefficients, wherein the predetermined set of coupling coefficients are computed, for each of the plurality of transmit chains, by: selecting, by the baseband processor, a first feedback signal in a given transmit chain of the plurality of transmit chains and a second feedback signal in another transmit chain of the plurality of transmit chains, when a reference signal is transmitted via the given transmit chain; determining, by the baseband processor, a feedback power associated with each of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal; and determining, by the baseband processor, a coupling coefficient at the another transmit chain while the given transmit chain transmits the reference signal, wherein the coupling coefficient at the another transmit chain is based on the feedback power associated with each of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal, respectively. Closest prior art, Andrey et al. US 2020/0099347 in view of Chekhovstov et al. US 2011/0274210, discloses A method for managing radio frequency signal coupling, comprising: transmitting, by a baseband processor, in each of a plurality of transmit chains, a modified input signal to a power amplifier, wherein the modified input signal is generated based on a predetermined set of coupling coefficients. However, prior art of record fails to disclose either alone or in combination the details of wherein the predetermined set of coupling coefficients are computed, for each of the plurality of transmit chains, by: selecting, by the baseband processor, a first feedback signal in a given transmit chain of the plurality of transmit chains and a second feedback signal in another transmit chain of the plurality of transmit chains, when a reference signal is transmitted via the given transmit chain; determining, by the baseband processor, a feedback power associated with each of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal; and determining, by the baseband processor, a coupling coefficient at the another transmit chain while the given transmit chain transmits the reference signal, wherein the coupling coefficient at the another transmit chain is based on the feedback power associated with each of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal, respectively, as claimed in claim 10, in combination with each and every other limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 11-16:
Claims 11-16 are allowed as being dependent on claim 10.
The prior art of record, also does not teach or suggest select a first feedback signal in a given transmit chain of the plurality of transmit chains and a second feedback signal in another transmit chain of the plurality of transmit chains based on a reference signal; determine a feedback power associated with each of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal; determine a coupling coefficient at the another transmit chain while the first transmit chain transmits the reference signal, wherein the coupling coefficient at the another transmit chain is based on the feedback power associated with each of the first feedback signal and the second feedback signal; identify a set of coupling coefficients for transmission of an input signal via each of the plurality of transmit chains; and generate a modified input signal to be transmitted via each of the plurality of transmit chains based on the identified set of coupling coefficients to nullify a coupling signal in each of the plurality of transmit chains, wherein the coupling signal represents a signal impairment due to radio frequency signal coupling between any two transmit chains in the plurality of transmit chains as recited in claim 17 for the same reason stated in claim 10 above.
Regarding claims 18-20:
Claims 18-20 are allowed as being dependent on claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE N TIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-1888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/JANICE N TIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633