DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/815389 filed on 08/26/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 . 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 18 are objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein when executed by a processor unit, the instructions further cause the processing unit to…..” should be replaced with “The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein when executed by the processor unit, the instructions further cause the processor unit to…..”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein when executed by a processor unit, the instructions further cause the processing unit to…..” should be replaced with “The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein when executed by the processor unit, the instructions further cause the processor unit to…..”. 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 14-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 (lines 8-9) recites the limitation “the processing unit”. However, there is insufficient antecedent base for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should replace “the processing unit” with “the processor unit”.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for at least the reason stated above. Claims 15-20 depend on claim 14; however, they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve any of the deficiencies of claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matters
Claims 1-14 would be allowed.
Claims 1, 7 are allowed over the prior art of record because the Examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art reference which teach the limitation “identifying the predetermined channel sounding waveform in the received RF signals; quantifying the self-interference using the identified channel sounding waveform, wherein quantifying the self-interference comprises determining a first interference signal of the received RF signals attributable to the first portion of the test RF signal received directly from the transmitter based on the identified channel sounding waveform and first timing of the identified channel sounding waveform associated with a first distance between the receiver and the transmitter; and adjusting the full-duplex system to correct for the quantified self-interference” with respect to the additional claimed subject matter and in particular the specific boundaries as recited in the claim. It is noted that the closest prior art, LIU (US 2016/0277063 A1) discloses “[0006] According to a first aspect, an embodiment of the present invention provides a wireless full duplex communications apparatus, where the apparatus includes: a sending unit, configured to send a sounding signal and a first communication signal, where a timeslot used for sending the sounding signal is different from a timeslot used for sending the first communication signal, and the sounding signal is a large time-bandwidth product signal; a receiving unit, configured to receive an input signal, where the input signal includes a second communication signal sent by another apparatus and an echo signal that corresponds to the sounding signal and the first communication signal; a signal separation unit, configured to separate a near-field reflection signal corresponding to the sounding signal from the echo signal; a processing unit for a near-field reflected self-interference signal, configured to determine, based on the near-field reflection signal, a near-field reflection channel parameter; and a cancellation unit for a near-field reflected self-interference signal, configured to determine, based on the near-field reflection channel parameter, a reconstructed near-field reflected self-interference signal, and subtract the reconstructed near-field reflected self-interference signal from the second communication signal”.
However, LIU fails to disclose at least the claim limitations “identifying the predetermined channel sounding waveform in the received RF signals; quantifying the self-interference using the identified channel sounding waveform, wherein quantifying the self-interference comprises determining a first interference signal of the received RF signals attributable to the first portion of the test RF signal received directly from the transmitter based on the identified channel sounding waveform and first timing of the identified channel sounding waveform associated with a first distance between the receiver and the transmitter; and adjusting the full-duplex system to correct for the quantified self-interference”. Thus, LIU does not disclose or render obvious the above underlined limitations as claimed. Claims 2-6, 8-12 are also allowed since they depend on claims 1, 7 respectively.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications:
LIU (US 2016/0277166 A!) [(par. 0024), a method for reducing a self-interference signal in a communications system, where the method is performed by an apparatus supporting wireless full duplex. The method includes: sending a sounding signal and a first communication signal, where the sounding signal is sent in a manner of being superimposed on the first communication signal, and a power used to send the sounding signal is less than a power used to send the first communication signal. The method also includes receiving an input signal, where the input signal includes an echo signal and a second communication signal that is received from another apparatus, and the echo signal includes a near-field reflected signal corresponding to the sounding signal. The method also includes separating the near-field reflected signal from the echo signal. The method also includes determining a near-field reflection channel parameter according to the near-field reflected signal. The method also includes determining a reconstructed near-field reflected self-interference signal based on the near-field reflection channel parameter, and subtracting the reconstructed near-field reflected self-interference signal from the second communication signal.]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (571) 270-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights