DETAILED ACTIONThis Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on March 9, 2026. Claims
1-20 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonden et al. (US 7742539 B2) in view of Warner et al. (US 8948325 B1), and further in view of Baker et al. (US 6606483 B1).
Consider claim 1, Fonden et al. show and disclose a circuitry (radio receiver in figure 9 and column 8 lines 44-46) comprising:
a circuit configured to receive a baseband signal, the baseband signal having an intermodulated non-linear distorted portion and a harmonic distorted portion (In the configuration depicted in Figure 9, items 82, 44, 46, 48, 50, and 40 comprise a circuit which receives a baseband signal. It is, at the very least, implicit or inherent, that such a signal would have an intermodulated non-linear distorted portion and a harmonic distorted portion as suggested by the disclosure in column 8 lines 49-57); and
a compensator coupled to the circuit, the compensator configured to generate a value to compensate for the intermodulated non-linear distorted portion without compensating for the harmonic distorted portion (In the configuration depicted in Figure 9, a compensator 12 “which compensates for errors” (see Figure 1, Col.3, lines 18-23) is coupled to the circuit outlined previously. Said compensator receives parameters that are set by a digital non-linear model which “should provide only inter-modulation distortion and not rectification and harmonics, in order to be modeled at the complex
baseband” (see Figure 9, Col. 8, lines 49-55)).
However, Fonden et al. fail to disclose that the compensator is specifically configured to output the value nor a circuit configured to adjust the baseband signal using the value.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a method for compensation of signal non-linearities that comprises:
a compensator configured to output a value (In the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, a value 538 is the sum of “calculating, as a function of the rotated complex baseband signal, compensation distortion components for a set of pre-determined distortion orders”) (Col. 4, lines 1-9)
and a circuit configured to adjust the baseband signal using the value (In the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, a compensated signal 108 is the result of “subtracting the compensation distortion components from the rotated complex baseband signal to obtain a compensated complex baseband signal”) (Col. 4, lines 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a means to adjust the baseband signal as disclosed by Warner et al. in order to apply the adaptive correction technique to minimize intermodulation distortion in an incoming signal, rather than simply compensating for IMD produced by the IQ-modulator.
However, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. fail to disclose wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Baker et al. disclose a method wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal (see Figure 2, “Offset and scale module 256 provides linear gain control and DC offset compensation for the auxiliary loop. Under the direction of adapter module 262, offset and scale module 256 scales a magnitude of each of the in-phase and quadrature components of digital baseband output signal 253 based on a magnitude of the complex digital baseband input signal 203.” (see Col. 10, lines 27-34)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. and modified by Warner et al. by incorporating a method wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal as disclosed by Baker et al. in order to accurately adjust to changes to the baseband signal.
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al., fail to disclose a circuitry wherein the value is a complex number further comprising an in-phase portion of the baseband signal and a quadrature portion of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a circuitry wherein the value is a
complex number further comprising an in-phase portion of the baseband signal and a quadrature portion of the baseband signal (in the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, the complex baseband signal 104 is the sum of an I and Q signal (see Col. 6, lines 5-21). Given that the value 538 is the sum of seven distortion components derived from the complex baseband signal and that reference numerals 506, 518, and 528 are complex, it is implied that said value comprises some variant of the I and Q signals from the signal 104 (see Col. 8, lines 4-7)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. by implementing a complex I-Q compensation value as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Barker et al., in order to allow for ease of manipulation and greater flexibility in the value.
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al., fail to disclose a circuitry wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a circuitry wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient (in the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, the value 538 is based on the complex baseband signal 104. One of the summands in 538 is derived from reference numeral 500, which is the square of an absolute value of 104 (see Figure 8, Col. 6, Lines 54-59). The component summands are additionally modified by reference numerals 504, 510, 516, 526, 524, 532, and 536, which are characterized as linear functions that “may be simple scalars, or could be finite impulse response (FIR) filters” depending on the non-linear distortion) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a circuitry wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Barker et al., in order to accurately represent the distortion in a manner which adapts to changes in the baseband signal.
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 5 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al., fail to disclose a circuitry wherein one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient are selected responsive to an operational frequency of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a circuitry wherein one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient are selected responsive to an operational frequency of the baseband signal (the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 10 represents an adjustment responsive to a baseband signal that “is significantly offset from the center of a Nyquist band” (Col. 8, Lines 11-15). In it, several of the previously referenced linear function coefficients have been set to zero (see Figure 10, Col. 8, Lines 21-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a circuitry wherein one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient are selected responsive to an operational frequency of the baseband signal as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Barker et al., for greater ease of information extraction and processing.
Consider claim 8, Fonden et al. show and disclose a system (radio receiver in figure 9 and column 8 lines 44-46) comprising:
a device configured to receive a baseband signal, the baseband signal having an intermodulated non-linear distorted portion and a harmonic distorted portion (In the configuration depicted in Figure 9, items 82, 44, 46, 48, 50, and 40 comprise a circuit which receives a baseband signal. It is, at the very least, implicit or inherent, that such a signal would have an intermodulated non-linear distorted portion and a harmonic distorted portion as suggested by the disclosure in column 8 lines 49-57); and
a compensator configured to generate a value to compensate for the intermodulated non-linear distorted portion without compensating for the harmonic distorted portion (In the configuration depicted in Figure 9, a compensator 12 “which compensates for errors” (see Figure 1, Col.3, lines 18-23) is coupled to the circuit outlined previously. Said compensator receives parameters that are set by a digital non-linear model which “should provide only inter-modulation distortion and not rectification and harmonics, in order to be modeled at the complex baseband” (see Figure 9, Col. 8, lines 49-55)).
However, Fonden et al. fail to disclose a system wherein the device is configured to adjust the baseband signal using the value provided by the compensator.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a method for compensation of signal non-linearities that comprises:
a device configured to adjust the baseband signal using the value provided by a
compensator (In the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, a value 538 is the sum of “calculating, as a function of the rotated complex baseband signal, compensation distortion components for a set of pre-determined distortion orders” and a compensated signal 108 is the result of “subtracting the compensation distortion components from the rotated complex baseband signal to obtain a compensated complex baseband signal”) (Col. 4, lines 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a means to adjust the baseband signal as disclosed by Warner et al. in order to apply the adaptive correction technique to minimize intermodulation distortion in an incoming signal, rather than simply compensating for IMD produced by the IQ-modulator.
However, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. fail to disclose wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Baker et al. disclose a method wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal (see Figure 2, “Offset and scale module 256 provides linear gain control and DC offset compensation for the auxiliary loop. Under the direction of adapter module 262, offset and scale module 256 scales a magnitude of each of the in-phase and quadrature components of digital baseband output signal 253 based on a magnitude of the complex digital baseband input signal 203.” (see Col. 10, lines 27-34)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. and modified by Warner et al. by incorporating a method wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal as disclosed by Baker et al. in order to accurately adjust to changes to the baseband signal.
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 8 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al., fail to disclose wherein the value is a complex number further comprising an in-phase portion of the baseband signal and a quadrature portion of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a system wherein the value is a complex number further comprising an in-phase portion of the baseband signal and a quadrature portion of the baseband signal (in the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, the complex baseband signal 104 is the sum of an I and Q signal (see Col. 6, lines 5-21). Given that the value 538 is the sum of seven distortion components derived from the complex baseband signal and that reference numerals 506, 518, and 528 are complex, it is implied that said value comprises some variant of the I and Q signals from the signal 104 (see Col. 8, lines 4-7)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Fonden et al. by implementing a complex I-Q compensation value as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Baker et al., in order to
allow for ease of manipulation and greater flexibility in the value.
Consider claim 12, and as applied to claim 8 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al., fail to disclose wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a system wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient (in the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, the value 538 is based on the complex baseband signal 104. One of the summands in 538 is derived from reference numeral 500, which is the square of an absolute value of 104 (see Figure 8, Col. 6, Lines 54-59). The component summands are additionally modified by reference numerals 504, 510, 516, 526, 524, 532, and 536, which are characterized as linear functions that “may be simple scalars, or could be finite impulse response (FIR) filters” depending on the non-linear distortion) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a system wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Baker et al., in order to accurately represent the distortion in a manner which adapts to changes in the baseband signal.
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 12 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al., fail to disclose wherein one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient are selected responsive to an operational frequency of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose wherein one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient are selected responsive to an operational frequency of the baseband signal (the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 10 represents an adjustment responsive to a baseband signal that “is significantly offset from the center of a Nyquist band” (Col. 8, Lines 11-15). In it, several of the previously referenced linear function coefficients have been set to zero (see Figure 10, Col. 8, Lines
21-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a system wherein one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient are selected responsive to an operational frequency of the baseband signal as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Baker et al., for greater ease of information extraction and processing.
Consider claim 14, Fonden et al. show and disclose a method (for the radio receiver in figure 9 and column 8 lines 44-46) comprising:
receiving, by a circuit, a baseband signal, the baseband signal comprising an intermodulated non-linear distorted portion and a harmonic distorted portion (In the configuration depicted in Figure 9, items 82, 44, 46, 48, 50, and 40 comprise a circuit which receives a baseband signal. It is, at the very least, implicit or inherent, that such a signal would have an intermodulated non-linear distorted portion and a harmonic distorted portion as suggested by the disclosure in column 8 lines 49-57); and
generating, by a compensator coupled to the circuit, a value to compensate for the intermodulated non-linear distorted portion without compensating for the harmonic distorted portion (In the configuration depicted in Figure 9, a compensator 12 “which compensates for errors” (see Figure 1, Col.3, lines 18-23) is coupled to the circuit outlined previously. Said compensator receives parameters that are set by a digital non-linear model which “should provide only inter-modulation distortion and not rectification and harmonics, in order to be modeled at the complex baseband” (see Figure 9, Col. 8, lines 49-55).
However, Fonden et al. fail to disclose adjusting, by the circuit, the baseband signal using the value outputted by the compensator.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a method for compensation of signal non-linearities that comprises:
adjusting, by the circuit, the baseband signal using the value outputted by the compensator (In the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, a value 538 is the sum of “calculating, as a function of the rotated complex baseband signal, compensation distortion components for a set of pre-determined distortion orders” and a compensated signal 108 is the result of “subtracting the compensation distortion components from the rotated complex baseband signal to obtain a compensated complex baseband signal”) (Col. 4, lines 1-9)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a means to adjust the baseband signal as disclosed by Warner et al. in order to apply the adaptive correction technique to minimize intermodulation distortion in an incoming signal, rather than simply compensating for IMD produced by the IQ-modulator.
However, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. fail to disclose wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Baker et al. disclose a method wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal (see Figure 2, “Offset and scale module 256 provides linear gain control and DC offset compensation for the auxiliary loop. Under the direction of adapter module 262, offset and scale module 256 scales a magnitude of each of the in-phase and quadrature components of digital baseband output signal 253 based on a magnitude of the complex digital baseband input signal 203.” (see Col. 10, lines 27-34)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. and modified by Warner et al. by incorporating a method wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal as disclosed by Baker et al. in order to accurately adjust to changes to the baseband signal.
Consider claim 16, and as applied to claim 14 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al., fail to disclose wherein the value is a complex number further comprising an in-phase portion of the baseband signal and a quadrature portion of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a method wherein the value is a complex number further comprising an in-phase portion of the baseband signal and a quadrature portion of the baseband signal (in the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, the complex baseband signal 104 is the sum of an I and Q signal (see Col. 6, lines 5-21). Given that the value 538 is the sum of seven distortion components derived from the complex baseband signal and that reference numerals 506, 518, and 528 are complex, it is implied that said value comprises some variant of the I and Q signals from the signal 104 (see Col. 8, lines 4-7)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Fonden et al. by implementing a complex I-Q compensation value as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Baker et al., in order to allow for ease of manipulation and greater flexibility in the value.
Consider claim 18, and as applied to claim 14 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al., fail to disclose wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a method wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient (in the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 8, the value 538 is based on the complex baseband signal 104. One of the summands in 538 is derived from reference numeral 500, which is the square of an absolute value of 104 (see Figure 8, Col. 6, Lines 54-59). The component summands are additionally modified by reference numerals 504, 510, 516, 526, 524, 532, and 536, which are characterized as linear functions that “may be simple scalars, or could be finite impulse response (FIR) filters” depending on the non-linear distortion) (Col. 7, Lines 5-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a method wherein the value is based at least on the baseband signal, a square of an absolute value of the baseband signal, and a non-linearity coefficient as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Baker et al., in order to accurately represent the distortion in a manner which adapts to changes in the baseband signal.
Consider claim 19, and as applied to claim 18 above, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al.,fail to disclose selecting one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient responsive to
an operational frequency of the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Warner et al. disclose a system wherein one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient are selected responsive to an operational frequency of the baseband signal (the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 10 represents an adjustment responsive to a baseband signal that “is significantly offset from the center of a Nyquist band” (Col. 8, Lines 11-15). In it, several of the previously referenced linear function coefficients have been set to zero (see Figure 10, Col. 8, Lines 21-24)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Fonden et al. by incorporating a method wherein one or more values of the non-linearity coefficient are selected responsive to an operational frequency of the baseband signal as disclosed by Warner et al., as modified by Baker et al., for greater ease of information extraction and processing.
Claims 2, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonden et al. (US 7742539 B2) in view of Warner et al. (US 8948325 B1), and further in view of Baker et al. (US 6606483 B1) and still further in view of Sen et al. (US 2017/0187405 A1).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. fail to disclose a circuitry wherein the baseband signal is a baseband voltage.
In the same field of endeavor, Sen et al. disclose a receiver circuit wherein the baseband signal is a baseband voltage (the circuitry is “configured to receive the RF input signal as a voltage signal and output an amplified RF voltage signal based thereon,” further comprising
“a baseband amplifier circuit…configured to receive the amplified baseband voltage signal
and output a further amplified baseband voltage signal based thereon” (paragraph 0072)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. with the teachings of Sen et al. to configure the circuit to receive the baseband signal in the form of a voltage in order to optimize it for low power and low linearity input signals.
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 8 above, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. fail to disclose wherein the baseband signal is a baseband voltage.
In the same field of endeavor, Sen et al. disclose a receiver system wherein the baseband signal is a baseband voltage (the circuitry is “configured to receive the RF input signal as a voltage signal and output an amplified RF voltage signal based thereon,” further comprising “a baseband amplifier circuit…configured to receive the amplified baseband voltage signal and output a further amplified baseband voltage signal based thereon” (Page 15, paragraph 0072)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. with the teachings of Sen et al. to configure the system to receive the baseband signal in the form of a voltage in order to optimize it for low power and low linearity input signals.
Consider claim 15, and as applied to claim 14 above, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. fail to disclose wherein the baseband signal is a baseband voltage.
In the same field of endeavor, Sen et al. disclose wherein the baseband signal is a baseband voltage (the circuitry is “configured to receive the RF input signal as a voltage signal and output an amplified RF voltage signal based thereon,” further comprising “a baseband amplifier circuit…configured to receive the amplified baseband voltage signal and output a further amplified baseband voltage signal based thereon” (paragraph 0072)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. with the teachings of Sen et al. to configure the method to receive the baseband signal in the form of a voltage in order to optimize it for low power and low linearity input
signals.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonden et al. (US 7742539 B2) in view of Warner et al. (US 8948325 B1), further in view of Baker et al. (US 6606483 B1), and still further in view of Tu et al. (US 2019/0123772 A1) and Shiomi (US 2007/0252795 A1).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. fail to disclose a circuitry wherein the compensator further comprises at least one of a rounding or truncation engine to output the value.
In the same field of endeavor, Tu et al. disclose a nonlinearity cancellation circuit wherein the compensator further comprises at least one of a rounding or truncation engine to output the value (the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 7 comprises “post-processing (applying post-processing functions, such as round-and-saturation (rns) function) block 740” (paragraph 0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. with the teachings of Tu et al. to add a means to round or truncate the value in order to simplify the means of baseband adjustment using the value.
However, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al., Baker et al., and Tu et al., do not disclose wherein the value is rounded or truncated, and wherein a dither is injected before the rounding or truncation engine.
In the same field of endeavor, Shiomi discloses a signal processing section of a driving device wherein a dither is injected before the rounding or truncation engine (the gradation conversion section depicted in Figure 19 comprises a noise generating circuit 84 which “generates a noise with a randomness allowing for preventing a false outline in an image” (paragraph 0225), which is functionally identical to a dither. Figure 19 further depicts a rounding circuit 85 receiving the output from noise adding circuit 83, which injects the output from the noise generator into the signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al., as modified by Baker et al., Warner et al., and Tu et al. with the teachings of Shiomi to inject a dither before the rounding or truncation engine in order to mitigate temporal changes in the baseband noise.
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 8 above, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. fail to disclose a system wherein the compensator further comprises at least one of a rounding or truncation engine to output the value.
In the same field of endeavor, Tu et al. disclose a nonlinearity cancellation system wherein the compensator further comprises at least one of a rounding or truncation engine to output the value (the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 7 comprises “post-processing (applying post-processing functions, such as round-and-saturation (rns) function) block
740” (paragraph 0075)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. with the teachings of Tu et al. to add a means to round or truncate the value in order to simplify the means of baseband adjustment using the value.
However, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al., Baker et al., and Tu et al., do not disclose wherein the value is rounded or truncated, and wherein a dither is injected before the rounding or truncation engine.
In the same field of endeavor, Shiomi discloses a signal processing section of a driving device wherein a dither is injected before the rounding or truncation engine (the gradation conversion section depicted in Figure 19 comprises a noise generating circuit 84 which “generates a noise with a randomness allowing for preventing a false outline in an image” (paragraph 0225), which is functionally identical to a dither. Figure 19 further depicts a rounding circuit 85 receiving the output from noise adding circuit 83, which injects the output from the noise generator into the signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al., Baker et al., and Tu et al. with the teachings of Shiomi to inject a dither before the rounding or truncation engine in order to mitigate temporal changes in the baseband noise.
Claims 7 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonden et al. (US 7742539 B2) in view of Warner et al. (US 8948325 B1), further in view of Baker et al. (US 6606483 B1) and still further in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0143501 A1).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. fail to disclose a circuitry further comprising a down converter to filter mirror frequencies.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang et al. disclose a receiver comprising a mixer 128 that down converts an intermodulation signal to baseband by mixing the intermodulation signal with a local oscillator tone. The baseband signal is passed through a low-pass filter 136 to remove the higher frequency mixer output components (i.e., mirror frequencies). These allow the DC component (i.e. baseband information) to be passed to the baseband processing block 46 (paragraph 0096 - mixer 128 and low pass filter 136 reads on downconverter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. by including a downconverter to filter mirror frequencies as disclosed by Huang et al. in order to remove distorting frequencies produced by the down conversion process.
Consider claim 20, and as applied to claim 14 above, Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. fail to disclose filtering, by a down converter, mirror frequencies from the baseband signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang et al. disclose a receiver comprising a mixer 128 that down converts an intermodulation signal to baseband by mixing the intermodulation signal with a local oscillator tone. The baseband signal is passed through a low-pass filter 136 to remove the higher frequency mixer output components (i.e., mirror frequencies). These allow the DC component (i.e. baseband information) to be passed to the baseband processing block 46 (paragraph 0096 - mixer 128 and low pass filter 136 reads on downconverter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al. and Baker et al. by including a downconverter to filter mirror frequencies as disclosed by Huang et al. in order to remove distorting frequencies produced by the down conversion process.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fonden et al. (US 7742539 B2) in view of Warner et al. (US 8948325 B1), further in view of Baker et al. (US 6606483 B1), and still further in view of Shiomi (US 2007/0252795 A1) and Tu et al. (US 2019/0123772 A1).
Consider claim 17, and as applied to claim 14 above, Fonden et al. as modified by
Warner et al. and Baker et al. fail to disclose injecting a dither to the compensator.
In the same field of endeavor, Shiomi discloses a signal processing section of a driving device wherein a dither is injected before the rounding or truncation engine (the gradation conversion section depicted in Figure 19 comprises a noise generating circuit 84 which “generates a noise with a randomness allowing for preventing a false outline in an image” (paragraph 0225), which is functionally identical to a dither. Figure 19 further depicts a rounding circuit 85 receiving the output from noise adding circuit 83, which injects the output from the noise generator into the signal)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Fonden et al. as modified by Warner et al., Baker et al., and Tu et al. with the teachings of Shiomi to inject a dither in order to mitigate temporal changes in the baseband noise.
However, Fonden et al., as modified by Warner et al., Baker et al., and Shiomi et al., do not
disclose at least one of rounding or truncating the value.
In the same field of endeavor, Tu et al. disclose a nonlinearity cancellation circuit
wherein the compensator further comprises at least one of a rounding or truncation engine to
output the value (the compensator embodiment depicted in Figure 7 comprises “post-processing
(applying post-processing functions, such as round-and-saturation (rns) function) block 740” (paragraph 0075)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuitry disclosed by Fonden et al. as
modified by Warner et al., Baker et al., and Shiomi with the teachings of Tu et al. to add a means to round or truncate the value in order to simplify the means of baseband adjustment using the value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Baker et al. teach a device wherein the compensator-generated value is based on a magnitude of the baseband signal, rendering claims 1, 8, and 14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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 httos://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.
/ALEXANDER WU/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights