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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 15 January, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 32-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites “the signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “signal” has been introduced. It is unclear if this refers to “a transmission signal” as previously recited in claim 32.
Claim 36 recites “a curve function of the respective signal section is determined”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “respective signal section” has been introduced. It also renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if “a curve function” of just one or several of the signal section(s) previously recited in claim 35 is determined.
Claim 37 recites “one or more signal points are determined in the signal section” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if signal points are determined for just one or several of the signal section(s) previously recited in claim 35.
Claim 38 recites “a time assigned to the signal point is determined” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if a time is determined for just one or several of the signal point(s) previously recited in claim 37. Additionally, claim 38 recites “multiple signal points are determined” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the difference between “multiple signal points” recited in claim 38 and “one or more signal points” recited in claim 37 is. Furthermore, claim 38 recites “a number of determined signal points in the signal sections is the same” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “the same” herein refers to.
Claim 40 recites “the determined signal points”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “determined signal points” has been introduced.
Claim 45 recites “the signal points”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “signal points” has been introduced.
Claim 47 recites “the time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “time” has been introduced. It is also unclear if “time” herein refers to “a predetermined time” previously recited in claim 46.
Claim 48 recites “a time period” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation refers to “a first time period” previously recited in claim 46.
Claim 49 recites “the event”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “event” has been introduced. Additionally, claim 49 recites “a time period” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation refers to “a first time period” previously recited in claim 46. Furthermore, claim 49 recites “the time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “time” has been introduced. It is also unclear if “time” herein refers to “a predetermined time” previously recited in claim 46. Further still, claim 49 recites “the determined time period”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “determined time period” has been introduced.
Claim 50 recites “at least one transmitter” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation refers to the same “a transmitter” previously recited in claim 32. Additionally, claim 50 recites “a transmission signal”, “a signal”, “a time-dependent transmitter property value”, and “a physical structure” which appear to already be recited in claim 32.
Claim 51 recites “a signal” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this limitation refers to the same “a signal” previously recited in claim 50.
Claims 33-35, 39, 41-44, and 46 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 32.
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:
“an evaluation device” which contains generic placeholder “device” (Prong A) coupled with functional language(s) “to determine the transmission signal in the received signal” (Prong B) in claim 50. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function(s) (Prong C).
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.
In this case, an evaluation device in claim 50 corresponds to a processor or at least one processor.
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 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 § 101
Claims 32-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a method for determining a transmission signal and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 32:
A method for determining a transmission signal in at least one received signal, wherein the method comprises: sending a transmission signal via a transmitter, receiving the signal, which contains at least part of the transmission signal, wherein to determine the transmission signal in the received signal, a time-dependent transmitter property value is used, which results from a physical structure of the transmitter.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 32 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of:
“wherein to determine the transmission signal in the received signal, a time-dependent transmitter property value is used, which results from a physical structure of the transmitter”.
Each of these limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s specification, and are simply mathematical manipulation of data. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Under the 2019 Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, and concepts merely using a computer as a tool, fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of the limitation(s) of, “sending a transmission signal via a transmitter, receiving the signal, which contains at least part of the transmission signal,” amounts to mere data gathering and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on generic tools is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 32. For example, the use of the “a transmitter” fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than the steps that would be considered well understood, routine and conventional in the field to gather data. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
The Applicant’s disclosure discloses a generic computer/ processor, which is used for implementation of the abstract idea. It is important to note that a general-purpose circuitry that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The application of the abstract idea using generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 32 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 33-51 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and recite further data gathering and the mathematical manipulation of the gathered data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering or data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 33-51 are not patent eligible.
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) 32-33, and 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu (US 2009/0213770 A1 “MU”), in view of Eltawil et al. (US 2015/0318976 A1 “ELTAWIL”).
Regarding claim 32, MU discloses (Examiner’s note: What MU does not disclose is ) a method for determining a transmission signal in at least one received signal, wherein the method comprises:
sending a transmission signal via a transmitter (transceiver 100 [0026])
receiving the signal, which contains at least part of the transmission signal (a portion of the transmitted signal will leak through or around duplexer 170, as shown in FIG. 1. This transmitter leakage signal, SLEAK, is thus present at the input of LNA 110 along with the desired receive signal SRX [0027])
wherein to determine the transmission signal in the received signal, a the cancellation signal is constructed so that it has exactly the same shape and amplitude as the interfering transmitter leakage signal [0028])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ELTAWIL teaches that residual self-interference signals due to multi-path and the time varying nature of the wireless channel [0027]. ELTAWIL further teaches that the amount of cancellable self-interference power is limited by the hardware imperfections of a system [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MU to include the teachings of ELTAWIL, because doing so would utilize knowledge of transmitted signal to improve performance of cancellation techniques, as recognized by ELTAWIL. In addition, both of the prior art references, MU and ELTAWIL, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, self-interference cancellation system.
Regarding claim 33, MU/ ELTAWIL discloses the method according to claim 32, wherein: a. the time-dependent transmitter property value is stored in a storage device; and/or b. the time-dependent transmitter property value is a frequency or depends on a time period between two signal points of the transmission signal transmitted to at least one receiver; and/or c. the received signal is not modulated; and/or d. the time-dependent transmitter property value is determined on the basis of the transmission signal transmitted to at least one receiver (a portion of the transmitted signal will leak through or around duplexer 170, as shown in FIG. 1. This transmitter leakage signal, SLEAK, is thus present at the input of LNA 110 along with the desired receive signal SRX [MU 0027], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 50, MU/ ELTAWIL discloses a device configured to carry out the method of claim 32, the device comprising:
at least one transmitter for sending a transmission signal (transceiver 100 [MU 0026], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 32)
at least one receiver for receiving a signal which contains at least part of the transmission signal (transceiver 100 [MU 0026], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 32); (a portion of the transmitted signal will leak through or around duplexer 170, as shown in FIG. 1. This transmitter leakage signal, SLEAK, is thus present at the input of LNA 110 along with the desired receive signal SRX [MU 0027], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 32)
and an evaluation device which uses a time-dependent transmitter property value, which results from a physical structure of the transmitter, to determine the transmission signal in the received signal (the cancellation signal is constructed so that it has exactly the same shape and amplitude as the interfering transmitter leakage signal [MU 0028], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 32); (the duplexer 115 does not provide perfect isolation between the output of the transmitter 105 and the input of the receiver 120 and is typically a main source of the interfering transceiver RF transmission experienced by the receiver 120. Other interfering transceiver RF transmission areas may include spurious coupling from bondwires or a common substrate employed by the transmitter 105 and the receiver 120 [MUHAMMAD 0016], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 32); (residual self-interference signals due to multi-path and the time varying nature of the wireless channel [ELTAWIL 0027], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 32).
Regarding claim 51, MU/ ELTAWIL discloses the device according to claim 50, wherein: a. the device has multiple receivers, each of which receives a signal, and for each received signal the evaluation device determines the transmission signal using the time-dependent transmitter property value; and/or b. a distance between the receivers is at most half a wavelength of the received signal; and/or c. the transmitter is configured such that the transmission signal is a sound wave or an electro-magnetic wave (RF transceiver 100 [MU 0023]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MU, in view of ELTAWIL, and further in view of Cranford et al. (US 2014/0149629 A1 “CRANFORD”).
Regarding claim 34, MU/ ELTAWIL discloses the method according to claim 32. However, MU/ ELTAWIL does not disclose wherein to determine the transmission signal in the received signal, an amplitude value of the received signal is compared with a predetermined threshold value.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CRANFORD teaches that the comparator 208 may be configured to compare amplitude of the received signal with the amplitude threshold. Based on the comparison, the processor 210 may confirm a signal as a valid signal or an invalid signal [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MU to include the teachings of CRANFORD, because doing so would improve signal detection accuracy, as recognized by CRANFORD.
Claim(s) 35, 37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MU, in view of ELTAWIL, and further in view of Will (US 2021/0349203 A1 “WILL”).
Regarding claim 35, MU/ ELTAWIL discloses the method according to claim 32. However, MU/ ELTAWIL does not disclose wherein the received signal is divided into several signal sections.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WILL teaches that performing a range discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) based on the reflected radar signals to generate in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals for each range bin of a plurality of range bins; for each range bin of the plurality of range bins, determining a respective strength value based on changes of respective I and Q signals over time; performing a peak search across the plurality of range bins based on the respective strength values of each of the plurality of range bins to identify a peak range bin; and associating a target to the identified peak range bin [0191].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MU to include the teachings of WILL, because doing so would improve target detection, as recognized by WILL.
Regarding claim 37, MU/ ELTAWIL/ WILL discloses the method according to claim 35, wherein one or more signal points are determined in the signal section (performing a range discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) based on the reflected radar signals to generate in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals for each range bin of a plurality of range bins; for each range bin of the plurality of range bins, determining a respective strength value based on changes of respective I and Q signals over time; performing a peak search across the plurality of range bins based on the respective strength values of each of the plurality of range bins to identify a peak range bin; and associating a target to the identified peak range bin [WILL 0191], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 35).
Regarding claim 39, MU/ ELTAWIL/ WILL discloses the method according to claim 37, wherein: a. a signal point determined in a first signal section and a signal point determined in a second signal section have the same phase angle; and/or b. a first signal section and a second signal section are offset from one another in terms of time (performing a range discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) based on the reflected radar signals to generate in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals for each range bin of a plurality of range bins; for each range bin of the plurality of range bins, determining a respective strength value based on changes of respective I and Q signals over time; performing a peak search across the plurality of range bins based on the respective strength values of each of the plurality of range bins to identify a peak range bin; and associating a target to the identified peak range bin [WILL 0191], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 35). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MU, in view of ELTAWIL and WILL, and further in view of Copeland (US 9,160,594 B1 “COPELAND”).
Regarding claim 36, MU/ ELTAWIL/ WILL discloses the method according to claim 35. However, MU/ ELTAWIL/ WILL does not disclose wherein: a. a curve function of the respective signal section is determined; and/or b. the signal sections have the same phase angle range.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, COPELAND teaches that once a peak is identified and isolated, an interpolation is performed to fit the location and magnitude at the peak. The interpolation may be a quadratic interpolation, or other order of interpolation. The samples are fitted with a quadratic polynomial (or polynomial having other order) using the differential filter 624 [col. 12, lines 9-16]. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MU to include the teachings of COPELAND, because doing so would improve accuracy of peak detection, as recognized by COPELAND.
Regarding claim 38, MU/ ELTAWIL/ WILL discloses the method according to claim 37. However, MU/ ELTAWIL/ WILL does not disclose wherein: a. a time assigned to the signal point is determined; and/or b. a number of determined signal points in the signal sections is the same; and/or c. multiple signal points are determined, wherein the signal points are arranged offset from one another and/or are arranged offset from a reference point by a predetermined phase angle.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, COPELAND teaches determining a fractional location of a peak in a time domain based on the coefficients for the first polynomial and the identifier of the peak location [claim 9]. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MU to include the teachings of COPELAND, because doing so would improve accuracy of peak detection, as recognized by COPELAND.
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MU, in view of ELTAWIL, and further in view of Song et al. (US 2012/0293363 A1 “SONG”).
Regarding claim 40, MU/ ELTAWIL discloses the method according to claim 32. However, MU/ ELTAMIL does not disclose wherein at least one analysis characteristic value is determined: a. on the basis of the received signal; and/or b. on the basis of the determined signal points.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SONG teaches that the PRI modulation type recognition device 200 is formed to recognize a PRI modulation type from the received radar signal. In detail, the PRI modulation type recognition device 200 includes a sequence generation unit 210, a symbol sequence generation unit 220, and a modulation type determination unit 230 [0031]. Sequence generation unit 210 generates a difference of PRIs (DPRI) sequence by using differences of the adjacent PRIs in the PRI sequence [0032]. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MU to include the teachings of SONG, because doing so would enhance signal identification, as recognized by SONG.
Regarding claim 41, MU/ ELTAWIL/ SONG discloses the method according to claim 40, wherein the at least one analysis characteristic value depends on at least one time period of a pair of signal points, wherein to determine the time period of the pair of signal points, a difference is determined between a time assigned to a signal point and another time assigned to another signal point (sequence generation unit 210 generates a difference of PRIs (DPRI) sequence by using differences of the adjacent PRIs in the PRI sequence [SONG 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 40).
Claim(s) 44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MU, in view of ELTAWIL, and further in view of Blokh (US 2020/0067616 A1 “BLOKH”).
Regarding claim 44, MU/ ELTAWIL discloses the method according to claim 32. However, MU/ ELTAWIL does not disclose wherein at least one control characteristic value of the transmitter is used to determine the transmission signal in the received signal.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BLOKH teaches that RF analyzer 110a may be configured for processing and analyzing a variety of parameters and features with respect to the plurality of data packets received by RF transceiver 114. Such parameters and features may include, but are not limited to, CFO parameters, phase parameters, frequency parameters, and/or amplitude parameters [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MU to include the teachings of BLOKH, because doing so would improve system accuracy and account for frequency mismatch in the transmitter and receiver oscillators and Doppler effect, as recognized by BLOKH.
Regarding claim 45, MU/ ELTAWIL/ BLOKH discloses the method according to claim 44, wherein: a. the control characteristic value is a control frequency of the transmitter; and/or b. the control characteristic value depends on a phase angle difference of the signal points; and/or c. when determining the transmission signal in the received signal, it is checked whether analysis characteristics deviate from the control characteristic value in a first time period and approach the control characteristic value; and/or d. when determining the transmission signal in the received signal at least at a predetermined time, a first distance between a control characteristic value and the transmitter property value is determined and it is checked whether at the predetermined time a second distance from an analysis characteristic value to the control characteristic value is equal to the first distance or is in a predetermined range around the first distance (RF analyzer 110a may be configured for processing and analyzing a variety of parameters and features with respect to the plurality of data packets received by RF transceiver 114. Such parameters and features may include, but are not limited to, CFO parameters, phase parameters, frequency parameters, and/or amplitude parameters [BLOKH 0045], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 44). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MU, in view of ELTAWIL, and further in view of Raza et al. (US 2021/0352598 A1 “RAZA”).
Regarding claim 46, MU/ ELTAWIL discloses the method according to claim 32. However, MU/ ELTAWIL does not disclose wherein: a. to determine the transmission signal in the received signal, it is checked whether analysis characteristic values in a first time period are in a predetermined range that comprises transmitter property values; and/or b. to determine the transmission signal in the received signal, it is checked whether analysis characteristic values in a second time period for a predetermined time lie within a predetermined range that comprises transmitter property values; and/or c. to determine the transmission signal in the received signal, it is checked whether, in a first time period, an analysis characteristic value curve points in the same direction as a transmitter property value curve.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, RAZA teaches that re-estimating relative CFO and checking it against the previous estimates [0098]; and further maintaining a record of a carrier frequency offset measure of a transmitter relative to another transmitter, and authenticating a transmitter by comparing a determined carrier frequency offset measure against the record for that transmitter [claim 9]. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MU to include the teachings of RAZA, because doing so would result in a more robust estimate and improve system accuracy, as recognized by RAZA.
Regarding claim 47, MU/ ELTAWIL/ RAZA discloses the method according to claim 46, wherein: a. the time depends on a duration of a control period of the transmitter; and/or b. the predetermined range depends on the transmitter property values (maintaining a record of a carrier frequency offset measure of a transmitter relative to another transmitter, and authenticating a transmitter by comparing a determined carrier frequency offset measure against the record for that transmitter [RAZA claim 9], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 46). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-43, and 48-49 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action. However, the Examiner notes that there is a possibility the scope of the claims would be significantly changed after the claims are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action; thus, further search and consideration will be made after official amendment is filed on record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest art MU discloses active transmitter leakage cancellation techniques for reducing transmitter leakage in a frequency-duplexing radio transceiver. Reducing transmitter leakage to the receiver path of a duplex transceiver eases the linearity requirements for low-noise amplifier and mixer circuits, potentially reducing transceiver cost as well as complexity. In an exemplary method, a radio-frequency (RF) cancellation signal is generated from a transmitter signal, and the RF cancellation signal is combined with a received RF signal to obtain a combined RF signal comprising a residual transmitter leakage component. The residual transmitter leakage component of the combined RF signal is converted, using, e.g., a frequency mixer, to obtain a down-converted signal at baseband or at an intermediate frequency. A magnitude of the residual transmitter leakage component is detected from the down-converted signal, and used to adjust the phase or amplitude of the RF cancellation signal, or both, to reduce the residual transmitter leakage component.
Furthermore, ELTAMIL discloses a full-duplex transceiver includes a digital signal processor that processes digital signals, a transmit chain that receives a first digital baseband signal from the digital signal processor and converts it to a first RF signal, a receive chain that receives a second RF signal and converts the second RF signal to a second digital baseband signal, and an auxiliary receive chain that receives a portion of the first RF signal and converts it to an auxiliary digital baseband signal. The transceiver may further include a self-interference canceller that applies a channel transfer function to the auxiliary digital baseband signal to generate a cancellation signal and subtracts the cancellation signal from the second digital baseband signal to cancel self-interference at the transceiver. The suppression of self-interference in the transceiver assists the transceiver to achieve higher efficiency in full-duplex communications.
Further still, MUHAMMAD (US 2007/0105509 A1) discloses an RF transmission leakage mitigator for use with a full-duplex, wireless transceiver. In one embodiment, the RF transmission leakage mitigator includes an inversion generator configured to provide an RF transmission inversion signal of an interfering transceiver RF transmission to a receiving portion of the transceiver thereby creating a residual leakage signal. Additionally, the RF transmission leakage mitigator also includes a residual processor coupled to the inversion generator and configured to adjust the RF transmission inversion signal of the interfering transceiver RF transmission based on reducing the residual leakage signal to a specified level.
However, Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither MU, ELTAMIL, nor MUHAMMAD anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 42, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein: a. for determining the transmission signal in the received signal, the analysis characteristic value is analyzed using the transmitter property value; and/or b. to determine the transmission signal in the received signal, it is checked whether at least one analysis characteristic value corresponds to at least one transmitter property value or is in a predetermined range which has the at least one transmitter property value; and/or c. an analysis characteristic value curve is used to determine the transmission signal in the received signal” as recited in claim 42.
Similarly, Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither MU, ELTAMIL, nor MUHAMMAD anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 43, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein a time period is determined as the time period of the received signal, in which the received signal contains the transmission signal, wherein in the time period: a. several analysis characteristic values correspond to several transmitter property values or are in a predetermined range that contains the transmitter property values; and/or b. an analysis characteristic value curve points in the same direction as a transmitter property value curve”.
Similarly, Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither MU, ELTAMIL, nor MUHAMMAD anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 48, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein it is determined that a time period of the received signal contains the transmission signal when: a. analysis characteristic values in the first time period of the time period deviate from control characteristic values and approach the control characteristic values and when analysis characteristic values in the second time period of the time period, which is adjacent to the first time period, are within the predetermined range; and/or b. in the first time period the analysis characteristic value curve points in the same direction as the transmitter property value curve, and when analysis characteristic values in the second time period of the time period, which is adjacent to the first time period, are within the predetermined range”.
Similarly, Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither MU, ELTAMIL, nor MUHAMMAD anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 49, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “a. a maximum of the analysis characteristic values in the first time period is greater than a maximum of the analysis characteristic values in the second time period and/or a minimum of the analysis characteristic values in the first time period is smaller than a minimum of the analysis characteristic values in the second period; and/or b. in the event that it is determined that a time period of the received signal contains the transmission signal, the time is determined in which a maximum or minimum of the analysis characteristic values is present in the determined time period of the received signal”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 November 10, 2025
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648