CTNF 18/443,044 CTNF 86093 DETAILED ACTION This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted May 12, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are currently pending (claims 1-14 are withdrawn from consideration). Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 15-20) in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Drawings 06-36-01 Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see, e.g., U.S. Publication Nos. 2024/0008067, 2023/0396347; note the respective drawings). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 5. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 6. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 7. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0368098 A1 (hereinafter “Gopal”) 1 , in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0279480 A1 (hereinafter “Rosenqvist”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2004/0247046 A1 (hereinafter “Hsiao”) . Regarding claim 15: Gopal teaches a method at an apparatus, comprising: receiving a first signal associated with a first subscription at a first receiver chain of a two receiver chain downlink pipe, the first signal conveyed in a first plurality of slots; receiving a second signal associated with a second subscription at a second receiver chain of the two receiver chain downlink pipe, the second signal conveyed in a second plurality of slots (see, e.g., figure 2, [0035], [0061], [0076], [0082], [0113]; first and second signals of respective subscriptions are received over different receiver chains) ; changing a state of the second receiver chain at a first time (see, e.g., [0043], [0077]; note receiver chain tuning and/or configuration) . Gopal teaches concurrently operating two receiver chains, but does not explicitly state concurrently altering the receiver chains. More particularly, Gopal does not explicitly state “stopping, without resetting, at the first time, an iteration of direct current (DC) estimator loops associated with the first receiver chain; starting, without resetting, at a first slot boundary of the first plurality of slots occurring subsequent to the stopping, the iteration of the DC estimator loops associated with the first receiver chain; and temporarily increasing a first bandwidth of a DC notch filter associated with a DC estimator of the first receiver chain to a second bandwidth at a same time as the starting.” However, Rosenqvist teaches the alternative functionality of activating another receiver chain, or temporarily increasing the filter bandwidth of an initial receiver chain (see, e.g., [0049]-[0050], [0059]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Rosenqvist, such as the adaptation functionality, within the system of Gopal, in order to reduce receiving power. As such, it would have been obvious to such a person of ordinary skill in the art to stop and start estimation at the said time in order to adjust this bandwidth. Gopal modified by Rosenqvist teaches temporarily increasing filter bandwidth, as well as estimation generally, but does not explicitly state implementation of a notch filter or the iterating of a DC estimator loop. Nevertheless, these features are taught by Hsiao (see, e.g., [0012], [0064], [0066]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Hsiao, such as the filtering functionality, within the system of Gopal modified by Rosenqvist, in order to improve frequency selection and/or minimize unwanted DC offset. Regarding claim 16: Gopal modified by Rosenqvist and Hsiao further teaches reverting the second bandwidth to the first bandwidth, narrower than the second bandwidth, after a predetermined number of symbols associated with the first signal (see, e.g., Rosenqvist [0048]-[0049]; receiver chain adaptation functionality occurs as needed) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to revert to an initial state within the system of Gopal modified by Rosenqvist and Hsiao, in order to account for reduced failed transmissions. Regarding claim 18: Gopal modified by Rosenqvist and Hsiao further teaches, wherein the two receiver chain downlink pipe is a sole downlink pipe of the apparatus (see, e.g., Gopal figure 2) . Regarding claim 19: Gopal modified by Rosenqvist and Hsiao further teaches wherein in response to the apparatus being reconfigured to operate in single subscriber identity module mode, the method further comprises: receiving the first signal at the first receiver chain of the two receiver chain downlink pipe, the first signal conveyed in the first plurality of slots; and receiving the first signal at the second receiver chain of the two receiver chain downlink pipe, the second signal conveyed in the second plurality of slots, the second receiver chain serving as a diversity receiver chain (see, e.g., Gopal figure 2, [0061], [0076], [0081], [0082], [0090]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 9. Claim s 17 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. Relevant Art 10. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892. Conclusion 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST. 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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. /NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/443,044 Page 2 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/443,044 Page 3 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/443,044 Page 4 Art Unit: 2476 Application/Control Number: 18/443,044 Page 5 Art Unit: 2476 1 Gopal was cited in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement submitted May 16, 2025 (U.S. Patent Application Publications, cite no. 3).
Prosecution Insights