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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (4/13/2026) with respect to the art rejection of at least amended independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. A new reference is relied upon to reject amended independent claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14, 18-20, 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 the recited “configured to” should be “configured to:”
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11 are also objected to since they depend on objected claim 1.
Claim 14, line 5 the recited “shifting, via second frequency shift circuitry” should be “shifting, via the second frequency shift circuitry”. Claim 14 depends on claim 12 which has been amended to claim “via second frequency shift circuitry” (claim 12, line 12).
Claim 18, line 5 the recited: “clip and filter the first signal to generate a clipped signal” should be “clip and filter the first signal to generate at least a clipped signal”, because the claim also claims filter the first signal which generates another signal.
Dependent claims 19-20, 22 are also objected to since they depend on objected claim 18.
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 4 is 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 4, depends on claim 1. Claim 4 recites “wherein the input signal comprises
a frequency modulated signal, and wherein the frequency shift block is configured to shift a frequency spectrum of the frequency modulated signal to be centered about the carrier frequency”.
Claim 1, lines 7-8 recite “based on shifting a frequency spectrum of the intermediate signal to be centered about a carrier frequency”.
Based on the language of claim 4, it is unclear if the frequency spectrum of both the intermediate and the frequency modulated signal is shifted. Also, is the intermediate signal (whose frequency spectrum is shifted according to claim 1) related to the frequency modulated signal (whose frequency spectrum is shifted according to claim 4)? Does claiming that the shifting the frequency spectrum of the frequency modulated signal contradict the claiming that the shifting the frequency spectrum of the intermediate signal?
In the art rejection below, the claimed intermediate signal is interpreted as comprising a frequency modulated signal.
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.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
G. K. Srivastava and N. K. Tadkapalli, "Crest factor reduction for carrier aggregated OFDM systems," SoftCOM 2012, 20th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks, Split, Croatia, 2012, pp. 1-6, in view of Malkin et al. (U.S. 8,913,626).
With respect to claim 1, G. K. Srivastava et al. disclose:
crest factor reduction circuitry (page 2, Fig. 2, refer to Stage 2 (Noise Shaping) circuitry shown in more detail in Fig. 4 on page 4, and refer to the title Crest Factor Reduction and the used term CFR in at least sections IV. and V.) comprising a clip block (Fig. 4 refer to the polar clip, matched delay and subtractor arrangement on the left side) and a frequency shift block (Fig. 4, refer to the frequency shifters on the right of the Low pass filters), the crest factor reduction circuitry configured to
receive an input signal (Fig. 4 refer to the input signal (High PAPR signal), out of interpolation block in Fig. 2),
generate an intermediate signal (Fig. 4, refer to the signal comprising the down converted signals (to the left of the Low Pass Filters) and corresponding to the claimed intermediate signal, also page 3, right column text under equation (7) and page 4, text above Fig. 4) based on a clipping error (Fig. 4, the output of the subtractor on the left, is clipping noise (error)) between the input signal and a clipped signal generated by the clip block (Fig. 4 and described in the text under equation (7)), and
generate an output signal (Fig. 4, refer to the Low PAPR Signal output) based on shifting a frequency spectrum of the intermediate signal to be centered about a carrier frequency of the output signal (Fig. 4, refer to the upconversion to carrier frequencies performed by each of the mixers to the right of the Low Pass Filters, and text under equation (7) continuing onto the left column of page 4, also refer to page 2 , items 3 and 4 on the right column), the output signal having a reduced peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) relative to the input signal (as disclosed in at least Fig. 4),
and a transmitter coupled to the crest factor reduction circuitry and configured to transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal based on the output signal (Fig. 2, transmitter comprises (for example) the disclosed antenna).
G. K. Srivastava et al. do not disclose: clip and filter block, the clip and filter block.
Implementing delay for signal/signals, Malkin et al. disclose: filter (column 7, lines 21-35, column 8, lines 16-17, filter used to implement delay of signal(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the delay (matching delay) of the clip block (Fig. 4) of G. K. Srivastava et al. using a filter as taught by Malkin et al., so that a specific and known component (filter) to yield the predictable result of delaying the input signal (the High PAPR signal) of G. K. Srivastava et al.
Modified G. K. Srivastava et al. discloses the claimed “clip and filter block” and “the clip and filter block”.
With respect to claim 4, as best understood, modified G. K. Srivastava et al. disclose: wherein the input signal comprises a frequency modulated signal (page 3, refer to the equation (7) for the input signal, and Xk description on page 2, lines 1-5 of section V.), and wherein the frequency shift block is configured to shift a frequency spectrum of the frequency modulated signal (of the intermediate signal to the left of the Low Pass Filters) to be centered about the carrier frequency (as described in the text above Fig. 4).
10. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
G. K. Srivastava and N. K. Tadkapalli, "Crest factor reduction for carrier aggregated OFDM systems," SoftCOM 2012, 20th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks, Split, Croatia, 2012, pp. 1-6, in view of Malkin et al. (U.S. 8,913,626) and further in view of Hou et al. (U.S. 2021/0176107).
With respect to claim 2, modified G. K. Srivastava et al. discloses:
wherein the input signal comprises a digital signal, and the frequency shift block comprises a frequency shift block (page 2, right column refer to the text above Fig. 2, “…it is desirable to show the CFR performance on the over-sampled discrete time signals, typically an oversampling rate factor of L ≥ 4 will be used so that the PAR before D/A conversion accurately describe the one after D/A”, the input signal is a digital signal, refer to the frequency shift block (comprising the shown mixers)).
G. K. Srivastava et al, Malkin et al. do not expressly disclose: digital frequency shift (DFS) block.
Implementing a frequency shift block, Hou et al. disclose: digital frequency shift (DFS) block (comprising the DUCs of Fig. 7, column 5, lines 1-3 of [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the frequency shift block of G. K. Srivastava et al. as a digital frequency shift (DFS) block, as taught by Hou et al., so that specific and known suitable components (DUCs) are used to implement the disclosed upconversion of G. K. Srivastava et al.
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
G. K. Srivastava and N. K. Tadkapalli, "Crest factor reduction for carrier aggregated OFDM systems," SoftCOM 2012, 20th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks, Split, Croatia, 2012, pp. 1-6, in view of Malkin et al. (U.S. 8,913,626), Hou et al. (U.S. 2021/0176107) and further in view of Rick et al. (U.S. 2008/0013639).
With respect to claim 3, modified G. K. Srivastava et al., Malkin et al., Hou et al. do not disclose: wherein the DFS block comprises a coordinate rotation digital computer (CORDIC).
Implementing digital upconversion, Rick et al., disclose: a DFS block comprises a coordinate rotation digital computer (CORDIC) ([0073], [0057] and approximate middle of [0028] "Each rotator 214 operates as a digital upconverter...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the DUCs of the digital frequency shift block of modified G. K. Srivastava et al using respective CORDIC(s) as taught by Rick et al. to use known suitable components (CORDIC) to implement the DUCs with a reasonable expectation of success.
12. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
G. K. Srivastava and N. K. Tadkapalli, "Crest factor reduction for carrier aggregated OFDM systems," SoftCOM 2012, 20th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks, Split, Croatia, 2012, pp. 1-6, in view of Malkin et al. (U.S. 8,913,626) and further in view of H. Nikopour and S. H. Jamali, "On the performance of OFDM systems over a Cartesian clipping channel: a theoretical approach," in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 2083-2096, Nov. 2004.
With respect to claim 5, modified G. K. Srivastava et al. discloses:
wherein the clip and filter block comprises a clipping sub-block (Fig. 4, refer to the Polar Clipper) configured to clip (a magnitude) of the input signal according to a clipping threshold to generate the clipped signal (page 3, left column text between equations (1) and (2) also applicable to the clipping of Fig. 4 e.g. refer to the polar clipping “magnitude of the signal is clipped”).
Modified G. K. Srivastava et al, Malkin et al. do not disclose: clip an amplitude.
Implementing cartesian clipping, Nikopour et al. disclose: clip an amplitude (page 2084, right column, paragraph starting with “The Cartesian clipper clips….” Including equation (3) clips an amplitude).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify G. K. Srivastava et al. to implement the clipping sub-block as a Cartesian Clipper (instead of a Polar Clipper) which is configured to clip an amplitude of the input signal, as taught by Nikopour et al. and is disclosed to be suitable for performing the clipping of G. K. Srivastava et al. (G. K. Srivastava et al, page 3, paragraph under equation (1)).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 12-13, 16-17, 21 are allowed.
The 04/13/2026 amendment to independent claim 12 has made claim 12 allowable over the prior art of the record.
Independent claim 18 is currently objected to. The Examiner has searched the prior art for all the claimed limitations of claim 18 including the claimed “clip and filter the first signal to generate a clipped signal”. The “clip and filter the first signal to generate a clipped signal” is interpreted as requiring both clip and filter the first signal and that the clip operation generates the claimed clipped signal. Prior art disclosing or suggesting alone or in combination what is claimed in claim 18 has not been discovered.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon et al. (U.S. 2017/0187561) refer to the CFR reduction circuit of Fig. 3.
Morris et al. (U.S. 2010/0150256) refer to the peak power reduction circuit of Fig. 2.
Singh et al. (U.S. 2009/0323857) refer to the clipping and filtering transmitter of Fig. 1.
Contact Information
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA VLAHOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M 8:00-4:00, TWRF 8:00-2:00.
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, SAM K AHN can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
SOPHIA VLAHOS
Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/SOPHIA VLAHOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 05/19/2026
Prosecution Insights