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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in pages 6-8, the applicant asserts that “Applicant respectfully submits independent claim 1 is patentable over the cited references because the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest every feature that is claimed.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
The applicant further asserts in pages 7-8 that “Applicant respectfully submits the cited references do not teach or suggest "the controller performs control in such a way as to perform the uplink calibration operation in a time period before a downlink slot in which each of the plurality of transmitters transmits a downlink signal, wherein the time period is set within a time width of a period for switching each of the plurality of transmitters from an off state to an on state," as claimed.” Examiner respectively disagrees.
“During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." MPEP § 2111.01 (I) (citing to In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." MPEP 2111.01 (11) citing to Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the a time period, “the controller performs control in such a way as to perform the uplink calibration operation in a time period before a downlink slot in which each of the plurality of transmitters transmits a downlink signal, wherein the time period is set within a time width of a period for switching each of the plurality of transmitters from an off state to an on state”, the time period of transmitter from an off state to an on state before the downlink slot, which the UL-DL frame timing, 624xTx, in MOCHIZUKI also indicating the transmitter from off to on with the transient period and before the DL Subframe. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation the UL-DL frame timing, 624xTx, in MOCHIZUKI would read on the time period. Therefore, MOCHIZUKI teaches "the controller performs control in such a way as to perform the uplink calibration operation in a time period before a downlink slot in which each of the plurality of transmitters transmits a downlink signal, wherein the time period is set within a time width of a period for switching each of the plurality of transmitters from an off state to an on state," and the claims.
The rejection is maintained.
Statements Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph Compliance
For claim 1, the claim limitation “a controller configured to control an uplink calibration operation of transmitting an uplink calibration signal from the calibration transceiver to each of the plurality of receivers” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “a controller configured to” coupled with functional language “control an uplink calibration operation of transmitting an uplink calibration signal from the calibration transceiver to each of the plurality of receivers” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that the control unit 22 disclosed in figure 16 appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
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 wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624).
Regarding claim 1, MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624) teaches a wireless communication apparatus (fig. 2, 6, AAS) comprising:
a plurality of transmitters (fig. 2, par. 56, transmitter);
a plurality of receivers (fig. 2, par. 56, receiver);
a calibration transceiver (fig. 2, par. 57, 58, CAL receiver, CAL transmitter); and
a controller configured to control an uplink calibration operation of transmitting an uplink calibration signal from the calibration transceiver to each of the plurality of receivers (par. 83-85, the signal for UL calibration is received by the transmitter-receivers 22 via the CAL-RX Network 27 and the amplifiers 25 (S109)), wherein
the wireless communication apparatus performs a time division duplex (TDD) operation (par. 53, 54, TDD), and
the controller performs control in such a way as to perform the uplink calibration operation in a time period before a downlink slot in which each of the plurality of transmitters transmits a downlink signal (par. 87, the UL CAL operation, UL CAL is carried out within a time period from the end of UL to the beginning of DL, that is, within 624×Ts, and just after the end of UL),
wherein the time period is set within a time width of a period for switching each of the plurality of transmitters from an off state to an on state (fig. 3, 4, par. 87, UL CAL is carried out within a time period from the end of UL to the beginning of DL, that is, within 624×Ts, and just after the end of UL…transmitter transient period, transmitter off to transmitter on).
Regarding claim 2, MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624) teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller controls a downlink calibration operation of transmitting a downlink calibration signal from each of the plurality of transmitters to the calibration transceiver (fig. 3, 5, par. 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94), and the controller performs control in such a way as to perform the downlink calibration operation in the predetermined time period before the downlink slot (fig. 3, 5, par. 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, even if the interval from the end of UL CAL to the beginning of DL CAL is short… a DL sub-frame starts, and the transmitter-receivers 22 transmit a DL signal (S116)).
Regarding claim 3, MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624) teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller performs control in such a way as to perform the uplink calibration operation and then perform the downlink calibration operation in the time period (fig. 3, 5, par. 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, even if the interval from the end of UL CAL to the beginning of DL CAL is short (in UL-DL frame timing)… a DL sub-frame starts, and the transmitter-receivers 22 transmit a DL signal (S116)).
Regarding claim 8, MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624) teaches a wireless communication method being performed by a wireless communication apparatus (fig. 2, 6, AAS) including a plurality of transmitters (fig. 2, par. 56, transmitter), a plurality of receivers (fig. 2, par. 56, receiver), and a calibration transceiver (fig. 2, par. 57, 58, CAL receiver, CAL transmitter), and being configured to perform a time division duplex (TDD) operation (par. 53, 54, TDD), the wireless communication method comprising:
a control step of controlling an uplink calibration operation of transmitting an uplink calibration signal from the calibration transceiver to each of the plurality of receivers (par. 83-85, the signal for UL calibration is received by the transmitter-receivers 22 via the CAL-RX Network 27 and the amplifiers 25 (S109)), wherein,
in the control step, control is performed in such a way as to perform the uplink calibration operation in a time period before a downlink slot in which each of the plurality of transmitters transmits a downlink signal (par. 87, the UL CAL operation, UL CAL is carried out within a time period from the end of UL to the beginning of DL, that is, within 624×Ts, and just after the end of UL), wherein the time period is set within a time width of a period for switching each of the plurality of transmitters from an off state to an on state (fig. 3, 4, par. 87, UL CAL is carried out within a time period from the end of UL to the beginning of DL, that is, within 624×Ts, and just after the end of UL…transmitter transient period, transmitter off to transmitter on).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624) in view of KUNDARGI et al. (US 20180048492).
Regarding claim 4, MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624) teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller performs control in such a way as to perform the downlink calibration operation or the uplink calibration operation in the time period before the downlink slo (fig. 3, 5, par. 66, 84, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, even if the interval from the end of UL CAL to the beginning of DL CAL is short… a DL sub-frame starts, and the transmitter-receivers 22 transmit a DL signal (S116)).
However, MOCHIZUKI does not teach perform the downlink calibration operation or the uplink calibration operation sequentially for each frame.
But, KUNDARGI et al. (US 20180048492) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches perform the downlink calibration operation or the uplink calibration operation sequentially for each frame (fig. 6, par. 38, each calibration period 602 can include M subframes within which calibration reference signals, such as calibration pilot symbols, are transmitted sequentially from each of the M antennas for the base station).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by KUNDARGI in the system of MOCHIZUKI to calibrate transmitter or receiver.
The motivation would have been to increase the calibration signals to increase redundancy to improve calibration.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624) in view of YOO et al. (US 20180097667).
Regarding claim 5, MOCHIZUKI (US 20190044624) teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller performs control in such a way as to perform only the uplink calibration operation for each frame in the time period and perform the downlink calibration operation in a second predetermined time period after the downlink slot.
But, YOO et al. (US 20180097667) in a similar or same field of endeavor teaches wherein the controller performs control in such a way as to perform only the uplink calibration operation for each frame in the time period and perform the downlink calibration operation in a second predetermined time period after the downlink slot (fig. 16, 17, par. 110, 113, Each calibration phase 1610 includes portions 1612, 1614, and 1616…the calibration phase 1610 can include multiple portions 1612 and 1614 prior to the portion 1616.. a DL subframe 1710 and a UL subframe 1720; multiple UL calibration (1614) with multiple UL subframes then normal operation including downlink slot and then another calibration with DL calibration with DL subframes).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by YOO in the system of MOCHIZUKI to calibrate transmitter or receiver.
The motivation would have been to reduce or correct mismatches between UL channels and DL channels allows for effective application of channel reciprocity for CoMP joint transmission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MOCHIZUKI et al. (US 20240072832) teaches when the wireless communication device 10 is activated and a DL or UL calibration operation is periodically performed (par. 49); performs either the DL calibration or the UL calibration in a transient period in which DL is switched to UL in the flexible symbol or in a transient period in which switching from the UL slot to the DL slot is made (par. 94); performs either the DL calibration or the UL calibration in a transient period in which DL is switched to UL in the flexible symbol or in a transient period in which switching from the UL slot to the DL slot is made (par. 96).
HAREL et al. (US 20140341314) teaches periodic self-calibration on transmit and receive chains of each of said radio modules or antennas, and to establish channel reciprocity based on results of said self-calibration (claim 3).
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 THINH D TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3934. The examiner can normally be reached mon-fri 9-6.
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, FARUK HAMZA can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/THINH D TRAN/for /Thinh Tran/, Patent Examiner of Art Unit 2466 09/01/2026
Prosecution Insights