DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The remarks/amendment filed on 07/10/2026 (“Remarks”) amended claims 1, 9, 17 and 20 and has not added or cancelled any claims. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 (please see Remarks, pages 8-9) 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Office not shown that Landis, alone or in combination with Eitan, teaches performing a first non-linearity estimation to obtain a first non-linearity model associated with a transmitter of the wireless device based at least in part on receiving the one or more reference signals via a transmission from a transmission antenna element of the wireless device as generally recited in amended Claim 1, Examiner’s respectfully disagrees. It is because Landis teaches performing a first non-linearity estimation to obtain a first non-linearity model associated with a transmitter of the wireless device (Fig. 16, step 1610 and [0168], estimating a channel associated with the wireless communication and a nonlinearity of a power amplifier based on the first subset of DMRS samples), and Eitan teaches receiving the one or more reference signals via a transmission from a transmission antenna element of the wireless device ([0068] and Fig. 9, the transmitter 910 and receiver 920 may include a radio frequency (RF) coupling 930 between the transmitter's output and the receiver's input). In view of Applicant’s amendment, a new ground of rejection of Eitan in view of Landis is used because Eitan clearly teaches the newly amended limitations as stated below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitan et al. (US 2017/0134210 A1, hereinafter Eitan) in view of Landis et al. (US 2023/0012494, hereinafter Landis).
Regarding claim 1, Eitan discloses a wireless device (figure 3, 302) comprising: one or more memories (figure 3, 306) storing processor-executable code ([0045] memory 306, which may include both read-only memory (ROM) and random access memory (RAM), provides instructions and data); one or more processors (figure 3, processor 304) coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the wireless device to: receive one or more reference signals via a transmission from a transmission antenna element of the wireless device ([0068] and Fig. 9, the transmitter 910 and receiver 920 may include a radio frequency (RF) coupling 930 between the transmitter's output and the receiver's input).
Eitan additionally teaches to perform a second non-linearity estimation to obtain a second non-linearity model associated with a reception analog front end of the wireless device based at least in part on the first non-linearity model and a second gain state different than the first gain state, wherein the second non-linearity model is used for a linearization of one or more signals (Fig. 4, Fig. 9 and [0068]-[0069], receiver 920 may receive the transmission, via the Rx RF subsystem 965 and receiver front end 970, containing the amplitude modulated header, and the signal is processed by the compare and estimate non-linearity transfer function block 940, and then the compare and estimate non-linearity transfer function block 940 may then generate updated parameters for a pre-distortion block 950 to apply to the transmission) in order to enable efficient transmission and reception of millimeter wave signals.
Eitan differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching to perform a first non-linearity estimation to obtain a first non-linearity model associated with a transmitter of the wireless device based at least in part on receiving the one or more reference signals, the first non-linearity estimation is based at least in part on a first gain state.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Landis teaches to perform a first non-linearity estimation to obtain a first non-linearity model associated with a transmitter of the wireless device based at least in part on receiving the one or more reference signals, the first non-linearity estimation is based at least in part on a first gain state (Fig. 16, step 1610 and [0168], estimating a channel associated with the wireless communication and a nonlinearity of a power amplifier based on the first subset of DMRS samples).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eitan to additionally perform a first non-linearity estimation to obtain a first non-linearity model associated with a transmitter of the wireless device based at least in part on receiving the one or more reference signals, and that the first non-linearity estimation is based at least in part on a first gain state as per the teachings of Landis, in order to enable efficient transmission and reception of millimeter wave signals.
Regarding claim 3, Eitan teaches that the second gain state is associated with a second non-linearity of the reception analog front end (receiver 920 may receive the transmission, via the Rx RF subsystem 965 and receiver front end 970, containing the amplitude modulated header for comparing the transmitted signal with the received signal to generate updated parameters for a pre-distortion block (figure 9 and [0069]), the second non-linearity is different than a first non-linearity associated with the first gain state, because they are operated by different parameters).
Eitan differs from the claimed invention in not teaching a first non-linearity associated with the first gain state.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Landis discloses a first non-linearity associated with the first gain state (figure 6 and [0105], UE 115-b may utilize the channel estimation performed at 615, together with a strong portion within the multi-level DMRS, to estimate the power amplifier non-linearity which may be used with the digital post distortion algorithm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eitan in view of the teachings of Landis, in order to enable efficient transmission and reception of millimeter wave signals.
Regarding claim 4, Eitan differs from the claimed invention in that it does not teach that the first non-linearity model is associated with an antenna array including the transmission antenna element, a power amplifier of the wireless device, or both.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Landis teaches that the first non-linearity model is associated with an antenna array including the transmission antenna element, a power amplifier of the wireless device, or both ([0073]-[0075], wireless communication may experience non-linear noise due to power amplification and UE 115 may perform channel estimation using a first power portion of the multi-level DMRS to estimate the power amplifier non-linearity, which may be used with digital post distortion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to modify Eitan so that the first non-linearity model is associated with an antenna array including the transmission antenna element, a power amplifier of the wireless device, or both, as taught by Landis in order to more efficiently measure and estimate non-linearity by associating it with an array including the transmission antenna element, a power amplifier of the wireless device, or both.
Regarding claim 5, Eitan teaches the received signal for the header with an expected signal and, based on this comparison, estimate an amount of non-linearity introduced by a power amplifier used in transmitting the signal ([0023]) such that the gain state is a target gain state from a set of gain states.
Regarding claim 6, Eitan teaches that receiver 920 may receive the transmission, via the Rx RF subsystem 965 and receiver front end 970, containing the amplitude modulated header ([0069], read as receiving the one or more signals via the reception analog front end of the wireless device based at least in part on the target gain state), and wireless device may compare the transmitted signal with the received signal and estimate the PA linearity through v.sub.in and v.sub.out transfer functions for tuning the PA input power to adjust the transmitter pre-distortion, or perform long-term analysis of the PA based on the comparison ([0067], read as performing the linearization of the one or more signals based at least in part on the second non-linearity model) in order to achieve high power amplifier (PA) linearity while retaining a high output power and efficiency in a cost effective manner ([0006]).
Regarding claim 7, Eitan differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach that a processing gain associated with the first non-linearity estimation is based at least in part on a signal to noise ratio corresponding to the first gain state.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Landis discloses wherein a processing gain associated with the first non-linearity estimation is based at least in part on a signal to noise ratio corresponding to the first gain state ([0046], the communication device may estimate non-linear noise which is then subtracted from the time domain signal, thus ending an iteration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to modify Eitan in view of the processing gain associated with the first non-linearity estimation that is based at least in part on a signal to noise ratio corresponding to the first gain state, as taught by Landis, to more efficiently measure non-linearity by basing the processing gain on a signal to noise ratio from the first gain state.
Regarding claim 8, Eitan teaches such ([0068]-[0069], receiver 920 may receive the transmission, via the Rx RF subsystem 965 and receiver front end 970, containing the amplitude modulated header, compare and estimate non-linearity transfer function block 940, and generate updated parameters for a pre-distortion block 950 to apply to the transmission such that the respective configurations of amplifiers associated with the reception analog front end).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, YUWEN PAN can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN HUY DINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights