DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communications file January 15, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8-11 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The replacement drawing sheets received on January 15, 2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The substitute specification filed January 15, 2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: it is not accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter thereby failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.125(b).
The disclosure of July 4, 2024 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in paragraph [0005], line 5, “mixer; the” should be “mixer. The”;
in paragraph [0023], line 1, “Corresponds” should be “Corresponding”;
in paragraph [0023], line 3, “comprising” should be “comprises”;
in paragraph [0023], line 7, “Wherein the” should be “The”;
in paragraph [0023], line 9, “filter; the” should be “filter. The”;
in paragraph [0024], line 1, “Wherein the” should be “The”;
in paragraph [0026], line 1, “Wherein the” should be “The”;
in paragraph [0027], line 1, “Corresponds” should be “Corresponding”; and
in paragraph [0028], line 7, “Wherein the” should be “The”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 23, the examiner suggests changing “one of the signals” to “one of the I-channel and Q-channel signals”;
in claim 1, line 27, the examiner suggests changing “frequency selectivity amplitude” to “frequency-selective amplitude” (see “frequency-selective phase” on line 25);
in claim 1, line 28, “the” should be inserted before “non-selected”;
in claim 9, line 20, the examiner suggests changing “one of the signals” to “one of the I-channel and Q-channel signals”;
in claim 9, line 24, the examiner suggests changing “frequency selectivity amplitude” to “frequency-selective amplitude” (see “frequency-selective phase” on line 22);
in claim 9, line 25, “the” should be inserted before “non-selected”;
in claim 11, line 14, the examiner suggests inserting “wherein” before “phase-frequency”;
in claim 11, line 25, the examiner suggests changing “one of the signals” to “one of the I-channel and Q-channel signals”; and
in claim 11, line 27, “the” should be inserted before “non-selected”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8-11 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
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are indefinite. The respective method claims do not positively recite any active steps so it is unclear what steps constitute each method within the scope of the invention. For example, regarding claim 1, it is unclear what steps comprise the IQ imbalance compensation method (see claim 1, lines 1-2). The “steps” recited in claim 1 (e.g. lines 15-16 and 42-71) are directed to the functionality of the “FD-IQMC device” and does not appear to be a step of the method claim. Furthermore, claim 1, lines 3-14 are directed to the structure or system for implementing the method instead of being the steps of the method.
In claim 1, lines 17-21, it is unclear what step(s)/function(s) is performed by the FD-IQMC device configuration (see “the following steps” on lines 15-16). Lines 17-21 recites the function of the FI-iqmc module but does not recite any active steps that are performed by the FD-IQMC device configuration.
Similarly, in claim 1, lines 31-41, it is unclear what step(s)/function(s) is performed by the FD-iqmc device configuration on line 31. Lines 31-41 recite the variables for the compensation formula but does not recite any active steps that are performed by the FD-iqmc device configuration itself.
In claim 1, line 39, it is unclear what is meant/represented by the square in the compensation formula. Based on the detailed description and the original claims, it appears that the square should be a multiplication symbol.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the step of performing phase compensation” in lines 42. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 does not recite an active step of performing phase compensation. For example, claim 1 does not recite the method as comprising performing phase compensation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the step of performing amplitude compensation” in lines 58. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 does not recite an active step of performing amplitude compensation. For example, claim 1 does not recite the method as comprising performing amplitude compensation.
In claim 4, it is unclear what is meant/represented by the squares in the equations on lines 9 and 10, respectively. Based on the detailed description and the original claims, it appears that the square should be a multiplication symbol.
With regard to claim 6, it is unclear how the Frac-delay filter processing and the D1 module in claim 6 relates to or differs from the Frac-delay filter in claim 1, lines 23-24 and the delay module in claim 1, lines 28-30, respectively. Since claim 6 duplicates the respective limitations in claim 1, the examiner suggests canceling claim 6 to overcome this rejection. If claim 6 is canceled, then claim 8 should depend from claim 1 and “the D1 module” in claim 8, line 4 should be “the delay module” (see claim 1, line 29).
In claim 8, lines 14-18, it is unclear what step(s)/function(s) is performed by the FD-IQMC device configuration (see lines 12-13). Lines 14-18 recites the function of the FI-iqmc module but does not recite any active steps that are performed by the FD-IQMC device configuration.
In claim 9, line 36, it is unclear what is meant/represented by the square in the compensation formula. Based on the detailed description and the original claims, it appears that the square should be a multiplication symbol.
With regard to claim 9, it is unclear how the steps on lines 39-71 relates to the components/limitations comprising the system. Since the claim is directed to an apparatus, the claim should recite that a structural component/limitation is configured to perform the appropriate corresponding steps to overcome this rejection. For example, “the step of performing phase compensation comprises” on line 39 may be “the [appropriate limitation] is configured to perform phase compensation by:”. Similarly, “the step of performing amplitude compensation comprises” on line 55 may be “the [appropriate limitation] is configured to perform amplitude compensation by:”
In claim 10, lines 23-27, it is unclear what step(s)/function(s) is performed by the FD-IQMC device configuration (see lines 21-22). Lines 23-27 recites the function of the FI-iqmc module but does not recite any active steps that are performed by the FD-IQMC device configuration.
Similarly, in claim 10, lines 33-43, it is unclear what step(s)/function(s) is performed by the FD-iqmc device configuration on line 33. Lines 33-40 recite the variables for the compensation formula but does not recite any active steps that are performed by the FD-iqmc device configuration itself.
In claim 10, line 41, it is unclear what is meant/represented by the square in the compensation formula. Based on the detailed description and the original claims, it appears that the square should be a multiplication symbol.
In claim 11, lines 18-23, it is unclear what step(s)/function(s) is performed by the FD-IQMC device configuration (see lines 18-19). Lines 19-22 recites the function of the FI-iqmc module but does not recite any active steps that are performed by the FD-IQMC device configuration.
Similarly, in claim 11, lines 29-39, it is unclear what step(s)/function(s) is performed by the FD-iqmc device configuration on line 29. Lines 33-40 recite the variables for the compensation formula but does not recite any active steps that are performed by the FD-iqmc device configuration itself.
In claim 11, line 37, it is unclear what is meant/represented by the square in the compensation formula. Based on the detailed description and the original claims, it appears that the square should be a multiplication symbol.
Dependent claim(s) are rejected under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633