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 .
Claim Analysis – 35 USC § 112
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 26 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “means for transmitting in each carrier portion of a plurality of carrier portions spanning an available bandwidth configured for the apparatus, a signal in full occupied bandwidth for the carrier portion; means for measuring in each carrier portion of the plurality of carrier portions, a respective power level of the signal; means for selecting a reference power level from among the respective power levels for the plurality of carrier portions; and means for adjusting the respective power levels for one or more carrier portions of the plurality of carrier portions to match the reference power level.” i.e., Para 0054 specifically define the means i.e., the means for the wireless device to perform operations described herein may include, for example, one or more of communication manager 150, transmit processor 220, TX MIMO processor 230, modem 232, antenna 234, MIMO detector 236, receive processor 238, controller/processor 240, memory 242, or scheduler 246. In some aspects, the means for the wireless device to perform operations described herein may include, for example, one or more of communication manager 140, antenna 252, modem 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, controller/processor 280, or memory 282.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-17, 19-21, 24-26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elinav et al. (US 20140064125 A1 and Elinav hereinafter) and further in view of Manea (US 20120213174 A1 and Manea hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Elinav, teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device (“terminal(s) 140a-n”[0022] and Fig. 1), comprising:
one or more memories (terminals 140a-n inherently has a memory); and
one or more processors (terminals 140a-n inherently has a processor), the one or more processors, individually or collectively and based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories, being configured to (“The instructions, when executed(by the recited processors), may cause one or more apparatuses to perform one or more acts...”[0055]):
transmit (“A terminal 140 (e.g. 140a) may use or may be assigned a dedicated return channel for transmitting a carrier 240 e.g. 240a respectively referred to as transmit)”[0024]) in each carrier portion (Fig. 2, elements 240a-n, referred to has each carrier portion) of a plurality of carrier portions (“carrier 240 a-n” [0024 and ]Fig. 2) spanning an available bandwidth configured for the wireless device (“power-bandwidth limitation 400 may be characterized by a bandwidth limitation 410 and a power limitation 420, wherein power limitation 420 may correspond to a maximum power level that may be drawn from a satellite (e.g. satellite 110) over said bandwidth limitation 410. In some embodiments, power limitation 420 may be specified as an E.sub.S/N.sub.0 characteristic of a carrier occupying the entire bandwidth associated with bandwidth limitation 410, i.e. spanning an available bandwidth, e.g. as such E.sub.S/N.sub.0 characteristics may perhaps be measured (e.g. either theoretically or practically) at hub 120. As E.sub.S/N.sub.0 may be a characteristic of power spectral density (e.g. power per a unit of bandwidth), multiplying said power limitation 420 by bandwidth limitation 410 may yield a figure corresponding to the maximum power level that may be drawn from a satellite (e.g. satellite 110) over bandwidth limitation 410. A similar principle may be applied to any part of the bandwidth associated with bandwidth limitation 410, for example to the bandwidth of any of the one or more carrier(s) 240a-n i.e. configured for wireless device”[0044]), a signal in full occupied bandwidth for the carrier portion a maximum power equivalent for a carrier 240 (e.g. 240a) may be calculated as the multiplication of a maximum E.sub.S/N.sub.0 level associated with carrier 240 by the bandwidth occupied by carrier 240 i.e. a signal in full occupied bandwidth for the carrier portion”[0044]);
adjust the respective power levels for one or more carrier portions of the plurality of carrier portions to match the reference power level (“ terminal 140 may be further configured to receive, e.g. from hub 120, one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements for carrier 240 and to regulate i.e. adjust the power level at which it transmits carrier 240 at least in accordance with the received one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements and in accordance with a last received maximum E.sub.S/N.sub.0 level for carrier 240.” [0041]).
Elinav teaches from Fig. 3 and [0028] (step 311) a data rate characteristic for data to be transmitted (DR.sub.REQ), to further determine (step 312) a first MODCOD that may be used at that time for transmitting carrier 240 associated with terminal 140 and a first maximum data rate that may be transmitted over carrier 240 using said first MODCOD (DR.sub.1). Terminal 140 may be further configured to then compare (step 313) the determined data rate (DR.sub.REQ) with said determined first maximum data rate (DR.sub.1).).
Elinav does not explicitly teach
measure in each carrier portion of the plurality of carrier portions, a respective power level of the signal;
select a reference power level from among the respective power levels for the plurality of carrier portions.
In a similar endeavor Manea teaches
measure in each carrier portion (configured to measure a power contribution of each remote receiver and adjust at least one of the power level [0026] i.e. measure in each carrier portion) of the plurality of carrier portions in (Para 36 and Fig. 4b and 4c that disclose a spectral representation showing carrier signal of the same bandwidth but different power level and the same PEB i.e., each carrier portion of the plurality of carrier portion), a respective power level of the signal (“The remote receiver may be configured to determine an optimal combination of power level and data rate for the remote receiver based on a predetermined data rate and one or more network requirements.”[0026]);
select a reference power level (“The modulator may be further configured to maintain a power equivalent bandwidth (PEB)(being the recited reference power level)”[0025]) from among the respective power levels for the plurality of carrier portions (“The remote receiver may be configured to determine an optimal combination of power level and data rate for the remote receiver based on a predetermined data rate and one or more network requirements.”[0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elinav with the method suggested by Manea so as to maintain the predetermined data rate and spectral allocation of the composite signal, thus maintaining a uninterrupted communications link between the transmitter and a remote receiver, (see Manea abstract).
Regarding Claim 2 Elinav teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to transmit a communication in multiple carrier portions of the plurality of carrier portions using adjusted power levels for the multiple carrier portions (“ terminal 140 may be further configured to receive, e.g. from hub 120, one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements for carrier 240 and to regulate i.e. adjust the power level at which it transmits carrier 240 at least in accordance with the received one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements and in accordance with a last received maximum E.sub.S/N.sub.0 level for carrier 240.” [0041])
Regarding Claim 3 Elinav does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to transmit the signal and measure the respective power level of the signal for each carrier portion one at a time in a sweep of the available bandwidth.
In a similar field of endeavor Manea teaches
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to transmit the signal and measure the respective power level of the signal for each carrier portion one at a time in a sweep of the available bandwidth (“by a processor, a change in a power level of a composite signal transmitted (the processors transmit the power signal) by a transmitter, the composite signal comprising a plurality of carrier signals and having a constant center frequency (frequency being the recited available bandwidth)”[0017] and “a hub configured (via the processors) to measure a power contribution of each remote receiver (being the recited carrier)” [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elinav with the method suggested by Manea so as to maintain the predetermined data rate and spectral allocation of the composite signal, thus maintaining a uninterrupted communications link between the transmitter and a remote receiver, (see Manea abstract).
Regarding Claims 6 Elinav does not explicitly teach wherein to adjust the respective power levels at the undroop filter, the one or more processor are individually or collectively configured to adjust the respective power levels in one or more frequency bins corresponding to the one or more carrier portions.
In a similar field of endeavor Manea teaches
wherein to adjust the respective power levels at the undroop filter (“Bandpass Filters (BPF) 220 that filter the frequency spectrum i.e. the undroop filter” [0058] and Fig. 2, element 220 ), the one or more processor are individually or collectively configured to adjust the respective power levels in one or more frequency bins corresponding to the one or more carrier portions (”adjusting one or more filter (i.e. undroop filter) roll-offs or excess bandwidth (bandwidth being the recited frequency bins) of one or more carrier signals while maintaining a power equivalent bandwidth (PEB) of the one or more carrier signals”[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elinav with the method suggested by Manea so as to maintain the predetermined data rate and spectral allocation of the composite signal, thus maintaining a uninterrupted communications link between the transmitter and a remote receiver, (see Manea abstract).
Regarding Claim 9 Elinav teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to receive a configuration indicating the wireless device is to transmit signals in the plurality of carrier portions (A terminal 140 (e.g. 140a) may use or may be assigned a dedicated return channel i.e. carrier portion for transmitting a carrier 240 (e.g. 240a respectively) [0024] and Fig. 2, carriers 240a-n) and adjust the respective power levels to match the reference power level (“ terminal 140 may be further configured to receive, e.g. from hub 120, one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements for carrier 240 and to regulate i.e. adjust the power level at which it transmits carrier 240 at least in accordance with the received one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements and in accordance with a last received maximum E.sub.S/N.sub.0 level for carrier 240.” [0041]).
Regarding Claim 10 Elinav teaches “Power-bandwidth limitation 400 may be characterized by a bandwidth limitation 410 and a power limitation 420. In some embodiments, power limitation 420 may correspond to a normalized symbol energy over noise (E.sub.S/N.sub.0) characteristic of a carrier occupying the entire bandwidth limitation 410 [0037] Fig 4, element 410 being the full occupied bandwidth”
Elinav does not explicitly teach
wherein to transmit the signal, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to transmit the signal in the full occupied bandwidth at a transmit power within range of a power detector of the wireless device.
In a similar field of endeavor Manea teaches
wherein to transmit the signal, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to transmit the signal in the full occupied bandwidth (Fig 5, the allocated frequency being the recited entire occupied bandwidth) at a transmit power within range of a power detector of the wireless device (“Implementations of a system for controlling bandwidth allocation over a communications link i.e. full occupied bandwidth may comprise a transmitter, a remote receiver a processor configured to detect a change in a power level i.e. power detector of a composite signal transmitted by the transmitter, the composite signal comprising a plurality of carrier signals and having a constant center frequency and spectral allocation…”[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elinav with the method suggested by Manea so as to maintain the predetermined data rate and spectral allocation of the composite signal, thus maintaining a uninterrupted communications link between the transmitter and a remote receiver, (see Manea abstract).
Regarding Claim 11, Elinav suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in method form rather than apparatus form. Elinav also discloses a method (”Various aspects of the disclosure may be embodied as one or more methods, systems, apparatuses (e.g., components of a satellite communication network), and/or computer program products”[0055]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 21, Elinav-Manea suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in computer readable medium form rather than apparatus form. Elinav also discloses computer readable medium (“In some embodiments, one or more computer readable media storing instructions may be used”[0055]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding Claim 24, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 25, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 26 Elinav suggests an apparatus for wireless communication (“disclosure may be embodied as one or more methods, systems, apparatuses…”[0055] Fig. 1), comprising
means for transmitting (“A terminal 140 (e.g. 140a) may use or may be assigned a dedicated return channel for transmitting a carrier 240 e.g. 240a respectively referred to as transmit)”[0024]) in each carrier portion (Fig. 2, elements 240a-n, referred to has each carrier portion) of a plurality of carrier portions (“carrier 240 a-n” [0024 and ]Fig. 2) spanning an available bandwidth configured for the apparatus (“power-bandwidth limitation 400 may be characterized by a bandwidth limitation 410 and a power limitation 420, wherein power limitation 420 may correspond to a maximum power level that may be drawn from a satellite (e.g. satellite 110) over said bandwidth limitation 410. In some embodiments, power limitation 420 may be specified as an E.sub.S/N.sub.0 characteristic of a carrier occupying the entire bandwidth associated with bandwidth limitation 410, i.e. spanning an available bandwidth, e.g. as such E.sub.S/N.sub.0 characteristics may perhaps be measured (e.g. either theoretically or practically) at hub 120. As E.sub.S/N.sub.0 may be a characteristic of power spectral density (e.g. power per a unit of bandwidth), multiplying said power limitation 420 by bandwidth limitation 410 may yield a figure corresponding to the maximum power level that may be drawn from a satellite (e.g. satellite 110) over bandwidth limitation 410. A similar principle may be applied to any part of the bandwidth associated with bandwidth limitation 410, for example to the bandwidth of any of the one or more carrier(s) 240a-n i.e. configured for wireless device”[0044]), a signal in full occupied bandwidth for the carrier portion a maximum power equivalent for a carrier 240 (e.g. 240a) may be calculated as the multiplication of a maximum E.sub.S/N.sub.0 level associated with carrier 240 by the bandwidth occupied by carrier 240 i.e. a signal in full occupied bandwidth for the carrier portion”[0044]);
means for measuring in each carrier portion of the plurality of carrier portions, a respective power level of the signal (“terminal 140 may be further configured to receive, e.g. from hub 120, one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements for carrier 240 and to regulate the power level at which it transmits carrier 240” [0041]);
means for adjusting the respective power levels for one or more carrier portions of the plurality of carrier portions to match the reference power level (“ terminal 140 may be further configured to receive, e.g. from hub 120, one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements for carrier 240 and to regulate i.e. adjust the power level at which it transmits carrier 240 at least in accordance with the received one or more E.sub.S/N.sub.0 measurements and in accordance with a last received maximum E.sub.S/N.sub.0 level for carrier 240.” [0041]).
Elinav teaches from Fig. 3 and [0028] (step 311) a data rate characteristic for data to be transmitted (DR.sub.REQ), to further determine (step 312) a first MODCOD that may be used at that time for transmitting carrier 240 associated with terminal 140 and a first maximum data rate that may be transmitted over carrier 240 using said first MODCOD (DR.sub.1). Terminal 140 may be further configured to then compare (step 313) the determined data rate (DR.sub.REQ) with said determined first maximum data rate (DR.sub.1).).
Elinav does not explicitly teach
means for measuring in each carrier portion of the plurality of carrier portions, a respective power level of the signal;
means for selecting a reference power level from among the respective power levels for the plurality of carrier portions; and
means for adjusting the respective power levels for one or more carrier portions of the plurality of carrier portions to match the reference power level.
However, in a similar endeavor Manea teaches
means for measuring in each carrier portion of the plurality of carrier portions, a respective power level of the signal (“The remote receiver may be configured to determine an optimal combination of power level and data rate for the remote receiver based on a predetermined data rate and one or more network requirements.”[0026]);
means for selecting a reference power level (“The modulator may be further configured to maintain a power equivalent bandwidth (PEB)(being the recited reference power level)”[0025]) from among the respective power levels for the plurality of carrier portions (“The remote receiver may be configured to determine an optimal combination of power level and data rate for the remote receiver based on a predetermined data rate and one or more network requirements.”[0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elinav with the method suggested by Manea so as to maintain the predetermined data rate and spectral allocation of the composite signal, thus maintaining a uninterrupted communications link between the transmitter and a remote receiver, (see Manea abstract).
Regarding Claim 29, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 30, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claims 4, 8, 14, 18, 22, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elinav in view of Manea, Elinav-Manea hereinafter, and further in view of Prodan (US 20160050127 A1 and Prodan hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 4 Elinav-Manea do not explicitly teach wherein to measure the respective power levels, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to measure the respective power levels using an in-circuit power detector. In a similar endeavor Prodan teaches
wherein to measure the respective power levels, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to measure the respective power levels using an in-circuit power detector (“The processor then processes the sample capture to generate a detected power and performs an integrate-and-dump (I&D) operation on the detected power over at least one time period to generate an integrated power.”[0037] and Fig. 3B, elements 230 and 380).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elinav-Manea with the method suggested by Prodan so as to support communications with other communication device(s) and to generate and process signals for such communications, (see Prodan, abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Elinav-Manea do not explicitly teach wherein to adjust the respective power levels at the undroop filter, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to obtain adjusted power levels from a stored data structure.
However, Prodan teaches
wherein to adjust the respective power levels at the undroop filter (operations may include any one or more of various operations including conversions between the frequency and analog or continuous time domains (e.g., such as the operations performed by a digital to analog converter (DAC) and/or an analog to digital converter (ADC)), gain adjustment including scaling, filtering i.e. the undroop filter (e.g., in either the digital or analog domains), frequency conversion (e.g., such as frequency upscaling and or frequency downscaling, such as to a baseband frequency at which one or more of the components of the device 110 operates), equalization, pre-equalization, metric generation, symbol mapping and/or de-mapping, automatic gain control (AGC) operations, and/or any other operations that may be performed by an AFE and/or PHY component within a communication device.[0049]), the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to obtain adjusted power levels from a stored data structure (“Memory 240 may also include and store various operational instructions for use by the processor 230 in regards to the processing of messages and/or other received signals and generation of other messages and/or other signals including those described herein. Memory 240 may also store information including one or more types of encoding, one or more types of symbol mapping, concatenation of various modulation coding schemes, etc. as may be generated by the device 110 or such information received from other devices via one or more communication channels.”[0048] and Fig. 2A, element 240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elinav-Manea with the method suggested by Prodan so as to support communications with other communication device(s) and to generate and process signals for such communications, (see Prodan, abstract).
Regarding Claim 8 Elinav-Manea teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. However, Elinav-Manea does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to: transmit the signal and measure the respective power level of the signal for each carrier portion while the wireless device is in an operational mode; and
adjust the respective power levels for the one or more carrier portions while the wireless device is in the operational mode.
However, Prodan teaches
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to:
transmit the signal and measure the respective power level of the signal for each carrier portion while the wireless device is in an operational mode (“the device 110 can subtract an appropriately scaled amount of integrated power from another integrated power (being the recited power measure) generated by another integrate-and-dump (I&D) operation (“Examiner is interpreting that the device is in operational mode if it is generating an I&D operation.”) (e.g., appropriately scaled based on a sample capture made during transmission of such a transmission symbol made with a reduced number of sub-carriers and/or power).”[0039]); and
adjust the respective power levels for the one or more carrier portions (“The device 110 then updates the integrated power histogram of the communication channel (being the recited carrier portions) using the adjusted integrated power”[0038] Prodan) while the wireless device is in the operational mode (“The device 110 then processes such a sample capture to generate another detected power and performs another integrate-and-dump (I&D) operation (the device is in the recited operational mode) thereon to generate another integrated power.”[0038] Prodan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the method of Elinav-Manea with the method suggested by Prodan. The motivation would be “to support communications with other communication device(s) and to generate and process signals for such communications” Prodan at abstract.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 22, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 27, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4
Claims 5, 15, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elinav-Manea and further in view of Huang (US 20220248347 A1 and Huang hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 5, Elinav-Manea does not explicitly teach wherein to adjust the respective power levels for the one or more carrier portions, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to adjust the respective power levels at an undroop filter in a digital front end of the wireless device, and wherein the undroop filter is configured to equalize gain imbalances over frequency.
In a similar endeavor Huang teaches
wherein to adjust the respective power levels for the one or more carrier portions, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to adjust the respective power levels at an undroop filter in a digital front end of the wireless device, and wherein the undroop filter is configured to equalize gain imbalances over frequency (“The transmitter and the receiver may include filters in the digital front end for each cluster (cluster being the recited carrier portion), and each filter (the recited undroop filter) can be enabled (configured) to pass signals and disabled to block signals (to equalize frequency gain imbalances).”[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the method of Elinav-Manea with the method suggested by Huang. The motivation would be so to improve cell activation process benefitting network operators and users of wireless communications thus this improvement can apply to apply to a wide range of multi-access technologies and the telecommunication standards that employ these technologies, Huang [0005].
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 23, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 28, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Montojo et al. (US 20050135312 A1) teaches a multi-carrier transmitter with a plurality of carriers served by a single power amplifier and allocating transmission power subject to a limit to one or more other carriers according to whether or not the channel served by the first carrier is in an active state. This ensures the next carrier in priority having available for its needs the total available transmission power less than the total power used by all of the carriers preceding it in priority.
Chen (WO 2022111692 A1) teaches reference signal sending method and apparatus, for solving the problem of poor signal quality of a reference signal sent by a terminal device caused by transmission limitations, in which the terminal device has a multi-transmission capability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Iyonda L. Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/IYONDA L LEWIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647