DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 8 August 2024.
Claims 1-13, 15-19, and 24-25 are pending. Claims 1, 18, and 24 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8 August 2024 and 9 April 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The examiner accepts the drawings filed 8 August 2024.
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 11 and 13 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.
With respect to claim 11, the term “updating until the target signal is approached (line 9)” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Neither the claim nor the specification provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for identifying that the “the target signal is approached”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites “periodically updating the power feature aided GB model and/or the power feature aided XGB model with the power feature aided GB model based training and/or the power feature aided XGB model based training to learn behavior of the DPD for the non-linear device (lines 5-7).”
As written, the claim appears to define four separate scenarios:
periodically updating the power feature aided GB model with the power aided GB model based training to learn behavior of the DPD for the non-linear device
periodically updating the power feature aided XGB model with the power aided GB model based training to learn behavior of the DPD for the non-linear device
periodically updating the power feature aided GB model with the power aided XGB model based training to learn behavior of the DPD for the non-linear device
periodically updating the power feature aided XGB model with the power aided XGB model based training to learn behavior of the DPD for the non-linear device
It is unclear whether the claim is intended to recite all four of these scenarios (a-d) or if the claim is intended to recite scenarios a and d. For this reason, this claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13, 15-19, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-13 and 15-17 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 18-19 are directed toward a device (machine). Claims 24-25 are directed toward a computer program product (manufacture). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
labeling the extracted plurality of power features to obtain at least one labeled average power level (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of extracted features and labeling the features, with the aid of pencil and paper, for additional use)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
extracting, for a point in time in a time period, a plurality of power features from an input signal destined to be input to the DPD (digital predistortion)
inputting the at least one labelled average power level to the input of the ML model
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recite the additional element:
obtain an output signal from the ML model having characteristics to reduce the non-linear distortion of the output signal of the non-linear device
Obtaining an output signal from the ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim recites the additional element:
providing the output signal from the ML model as an input to the non-linear device
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
extracting, for a point in time in a time period, a plurality of power features from an input signal destined to be input to the DPD (digital predistortion)
inputting the at least one labelled average power level to the input of the ML model
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recite the additional element:
obtain an output signal from the ML model having characteristics to reduce the non-linear distortion of the output signal of the non-linear device
Obtaining an output signal from the ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim recites the additional element:
providing the output signal from the ML model as an input to the non-linear device
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the input signal destined to be input to the DPD further comprises a historical input signal from a filter in the power feature extraction
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the input signal destined to be input to the DPD further comprises a historical input signal from a filter in the power feature extraction
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the extracting is repeated for additional points in time in the time period
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the extracting is repeated for additional points in time in the time period
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 4, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the labelling comprises applying at least one filter to the extracted plurality of power features to obtain an average power, and wherein the filter adjusts for differences in the extracted plurality of power features and differences in the plurality of different memory lengths for power feature extraction (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of extracted features and labeling the features, with the aid of pencil and paper, by applying a filter to obtain an average power and adjusting the filter for differences in the extracted power features and different memory lengths)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the power feature extraction comprises a plurality of different memory lengths
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the power feature extraction comprises a plurality of different memory lengths
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, the claim depends upon claim 4. The analysis of claim 4 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the at least one filter comprises at least one of a moving-average filter, an exponential moving-average filter, and autoregressive filter, and autoregressive moving-average filter, and a symbol-based filter (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of extracted features and labeling the features, with the aid of pencil and paper, by applying a filter, wherein the filter comprises at least one of a moving-average filter, an exponential moving-average filter, and autoregressive filter, and autoregressive moving-average filter, and a symbol-based filter)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2..
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the at least one labelled average power level comprises a filtered average power level that is labelled as one power level (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of extracted features and labeling the average power level, with the aid of pencil and paper, based upon an average power level filter)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2..
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the time period comprises a plurality of different time periods having different durations
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the time period comprises a plurality of different time periods having different durations
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8:
With respect to claim 8, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
identifies a power feature from the input signal destined to be inputted to the DPD over at least one different time period having a different duration (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to identify a power feature from the input signal)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the time period comprises a plurality of different time periods having different durations, and wherein the extracting is repeated
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the time period comprises a plurality of different time periods having different durations, and wherein the extracting is repeated
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
With respect to claim 9, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the ML model comprises a tree-based power feature aided gradient boosting, GB, model and/or a power feature aided extreme gradient boosting, XGB, model
The ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the ML model comprises a tree-based power feature aided gradient boosting, GB, model and/or a power feature aided extreme gradient boosting, XGB, model
The ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10:
With respect to claim 10, the claim depends upon claim 9. The analysis of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 9.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
training the power feature aided GB model and/or the power feature aided XGB model to learn behavior of the digital predistortion, DPD, for the non-linear device
Training the ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
training the power feature aided GB model and/or the power feature aided XGB model to learn behavior of the digital predistortion, DPD, for the non-linear device
Training the ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
With respect to claim 11, the claim depends upon claim 10. The analysis of claim 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
comparing the output signal from the ML model with a target output signal and identifying an error based on the comparison (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation of comparing an output signal and a target output signal to identify error)
iteratively… labeling (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation of extracted features and labeling the features, with the aid of pencil and paper, for additional use)
iteratively… comparing (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation of comparing an output signal and a target output signal to identify error)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
based on identifying the error, updating the first input signal to compute a new input signal destined to be input to the DPD for a next iteration
iteratively, repeating … the updating until the target output signal is approached
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim recites the additional element:
iteratively repeating the extracting… the inputting
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
iteratively repeating… the providing
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
based on identifying the error, updating the first input signal to compute a new input signal destined to be input to the DPD for a next iteration
iteratively, repeating … the updating until the target output signal is approached
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim recites the additional element:
iteratively repeating the extracting… the inputting
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements, recites at a high level of generality, amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
iteratively repeating… the providing
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12:
With respect to claim 12, the claim depends upon claim 10. The analysis of claim 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the training is performed offline in a communication system
Training the ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the training is performed offline in a communication system
Training the ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13:
With respect to claim 13, the claim depends upon claim 19. The analysis of claim 9 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
applying the power feature aided GB model and/or the power feature aided XGB model online to perform the providing
periodically updating the power feature aided GB model and/or the power feature aided XGB model with the power feature aided GB model based training and/or the power feature aided XGB model based training to learn behavior of the DPD for the non-linear device
Applying and training the ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
periodically updating the power feature aided GB model and/or the power feature aided XGB model with the power feature aided GB model based training and/or the power feature aided XGB model based training to learn behavior of the DPD for the non-linear device
Applying and training the ML model is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
With respect to claim 15, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
modeling a behavior of the non-linear device (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an evaluation to model a behavior of the non-linear device)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
The claim fails to recite additional elements considered under Step 2..
Claim 16:
With respect to claim 16, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the non-linear device comprises a power amplifier
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output to the non-linear device comprising a power amplifier (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the non-linear device comprises a power amplifier
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output to the non-linear device comprising a power amplifier (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17:
With respect to claim 17, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the non-linear device comprises a component in a radio unit of a base station or a component in a user equipment
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output to the non-linear device comprising a component in a radio unit or a base station or a component in a user equipment (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the non-linear device comprises a component in a radio unit of a base station or a component in a user equipment
This additional element amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output to the non-linear device comprising a component in a radio unit or a base station or a component in a user equipment (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18:
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
at least one processor
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing program code that is executed by the at least one processor to perform operations
The additional elements of at least one processor and at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing program code that is executed by the at least one processor to perform operations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
at least one processor
at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing program code that is executed by the at least one processor to perform operations
The additional elements of at least one processor and at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing program code that is executed by the at least one processor to perform operations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19:
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 4. The analysis of claim 4 is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 24:
With respect to claim 24, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim is directed toward the abstract idea identifies with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
a computer program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium including program code to be executed by processing circuitry of a device
The additional elements of at least one processor and at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing program code that is executed by the at least one processor to perform operations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
a computer program product comprising a non-transitory storage medium including program code to be executed by processing circuitry of a device
The additional elements of at least one processor and at least one memory connected to the at least one processor and storing program code that is executed by the at least one processor to perform operations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 25:
With respect to claim 25, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 4. The analysis of claim 4 is incorporated herein by reference.
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.
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, 7-8, 15-18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benosman et al. (Low Complexity Neural Network Based Digital Predistortion for Memory Power Amplifiers, 20 January 2021, hereafter Benosman) and further in view of Ganguly et al. (US 11762052, filed 15 September 2021, hereafter Ganguly).
As per independent claim 1, Benosman discloses a computer-implemented method performed by a device configured with a power feature aided machine learning (ML) model that models a behavior of a digital predistortion (DPD) to reduce non-linear distortion of an output signal of a non-linear device (page 236), the method comprising:
extracting, for a point in time in a time period, a plurality of power features from an input signal destined to be input to the DPD (page 237: Here, the time domain signal is defined by x(n) and the peak to average power ration (PAPR) is calculated for the signal)
inputting the at least one average power level to the input of the ML model to obtain an output signal from the ML model having characteristics to reduce the non-linear distortion of the output signal from the non-linear device (page 238: Here, the PAPR is reduced and a linearized conversion of a power amplification is applied)
providing the output signal from the ML model as an input to the non-linear device (Figure 1: Here, output from the ML model is provided to the power amplifier (PA). The PA is a non-linear device (page 236))
Benosman fails to specifically disclose:
labeling the extracted plurality of power features to obtain at least one labelled average power level
However, Ganguly, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward extracting and labeling features of data, discloses:
labeling the extracted plurality of features to obtain at least one labelled average power level (column 16, lines 1-21: Here, data is sent to a feature extraction module. The extraction module extracts features from the data and applies labels. The data may include raw input audio data that includes average power values (column 8, line 56- column 9, 23)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Ganguly with Benosman, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have provided the ability to extract and label data for training a neural network (Ganguly: column 16, lines 1-21) for use in digital predistortion (Benosman: page 236).
As per dependent claim 2, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses wherein the input signal destined to be input to the DPD further comprises a input signal from a filter in the power feature extraction (page 243: Here, a FIR filter is applied in the power feature extraction).
Benosman fails to specifically disclose historical data. However, Ganguly, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward extracting and labeling features of data, discloses historical data (column 21, lines 35-45: Here, historical data is inputted for training). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Ganguly with Benosman, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have provided the ability to extract and label data for training a neural network (Ganguly: column 16, lines 1-21) for use in digital predistortion (Benosman: page 236).
As per dependent claim 3, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses wherein the extracting is repeated for additional points in time in the time period (Figure 9; paragraph 245: Here, 20 iterations are performed. Each of these iterations is interpreted as representing one time).
As per dependent claim 7, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses wherein the time period comprises a plurality of different time periods (Figure 9; page 245: Here, 20 iterations are performed. Each of these iterations is interpreted as representing one time).
Benosman fails to specifically disclose wherein the time periods have different durations. However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective invention to process time periods having different durations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing data to have combined the well-known with Benosman-Ganguly, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for analyzing data from different length time periods based upon receiving a trigger event.
As per dependent claim 8, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses wherein the time period comprises a plurality of different time periods (Figure 9; page 245), and wherein extracting is repeated and identifies a power feature from the input signal destined to be input to the DPD over at least one different time period (pages 237-238: Here, the time domain signal is defined by x(n) and the peak to average power ration (PAPR) is calculated for the signal. Further, the PAPR is reduced and a linearized conversion of a power amplification is applied).
Benosman fails to specifically disclose wherein the time periods have different durations. However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective invention to process time periods having different durations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing data to have combined the well-known with Benosman-Ganguly, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for analyzing data from different length time periods based upon receiving a trigger event.
As per dependent claim 15, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses wherein the method further comprises modeling a behavior of the non-linear device (page 236).
As per dependent claim 16, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses wherein the non-linear device comprises a power amplifier (page 236).
As per dependent claim 17, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses wherein the non-linear device comprises a component in a radio unit of a base station or a component in a user equipment (pages 235-236: Here, the non-linear device is a component user equipment. Specifically, the PA is a component of a 5G device).
With respect to claims 18 and 24, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1. Claims 18 and 24 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benosman and Ganguly and further in view of Hill et al. (US 2022/0239384, 371 date 24 November 2021, hereafter Hill).
As per dependent claim 4, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman fails to specifically disclose wherein the power feature extraction comprises a plurality of different memory lengths, wherein the labeling comprises applying at least one filter to the extracted plurality of power features to obtain an average power, and wherein the filter adjusts for differences in the extracted plurality of power features and differences in the plurality of different memory lengths for power feature extraction.
However, Hill, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward power amplifiers discloses wherein the power feature extraction comprises a plurality of different memory lengths (Figures 2A-2C; paragraphs 0053-0058: Here, the signal is decomposed into composite signals having various memory sizes), wherein the labeling comprises applying at least one filter to the extracted plurality of power features to obtain an average power, and wherein the filter adjusts for differences in the extracted plurality of power features and differences in the plurality of different memory lengths for power feature extraction (Figures 3A-3B; paragraphs 0059-0060: Here, a filter is applied to the signal to converge the waveform to a sinusoidal signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Hill with Benosman-Ganguly, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for filtering of contents to converge the constraints (Hill: paragraphs 0058-0060).
With respect to claims 19 and 25, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 4. Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benosman, Ganguly, and Hill and further in view of McCormick et al. (US 12003350, filed 26 February 2021, hereafter McCormick).
As per dependent claim 5, Benosman, Ganguly, and Hill disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 4, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one filter comprises at least one of a moving-average filter, an exponential moving-average filter, and autoregressive filter, and autoregressive moving-average filter, and a symbol-based filter.
However, McCormick, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward digital pre-distortion to assist with power amplifiers, discloses wherein the at least one filter comprises at least one of a moving-average filter (column 62, line 53- column 63, line 9: Here, a moving average filter is used to minimize the effect of noise on the channel estimate), an exponential moving-average filter, and autoregressive filter, and autoregressive moving-average filter, and a symbol-based filter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined McCormick with Benosman-Ganguly-Hill, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for minimizing the effect of noise on the channel estimate (McCormick: column 62, line 53- column 63, line 9).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benosman, and Ganguly and further in view of Mohamed et al. (US 2014/0347125, published 27 November 2014, hereafter Mohamed).
As per dependent claim 6, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses using a filter (page 243: Here, a FIR filter is applied in the power feature extraction). Benosman fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one labelled average power level comprises an average power level that is labeled as one power level.
However, Mohamed, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a digital predistortion of power amplifiers discloses labeling the average power level (paragraph 0031: Here, a an average input power of the signal is determined and labeled). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Mohamed with Benosman-Ganguly, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for identifying and labeling the average power level (Mohamed: paragraph 0031).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benosman and Ganguly and further in view of Reynolds et al. (US 2023/0097885, filed 24 September 2021, hereafter Reynolds).
As per dependent claim 9, Benosman and Ganguly disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman fails to specifically disclose wherein the ML model comprises a tree-based power feature aided gradient boosting (GB) model and/or a power feature aided extreme gradient boosting (XGB) model.
However, Reynolds, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward machine learning models for optimization, discloses wherein the ML model comprises a tree-based power feature aided gradient boosting (GB) model (paragraph 0079: Here, a gradient boosted tree is used to reduce error within training/retraining a model for a device, including a power amplifier (paragraph 0094)) and/or a power feature aided extreme gradient boosting (XGB) model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Reynolds with Benosman-Ganguly, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have improved the model by reducing error (Reynolds: paragraph 0079).
As per dependent claim 10, Benosman, Ganguly, and Reynolds disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 9, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses training the model to learn behavior of the digital predistortion (DPD) for the non-linear device (Figure 3).
Benosman fails to specifically disclose wherein the ML model comprises a tree-based power feature aided gradient boosting (GB) model and/or a power feature aided extreme gradient boosting (XGB) model.
However, Reynolds, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward machine learning models for optimization, discloses wherein the ML model comprises a tree-based power feature aided gradient boosting (GB) model (paragraph 0079: Here, a gradient boosted tree is used to reduce error within training/retraining a model for a device, including a power amplifier (paragraph 0094)) and/or a power feature aided extreme gradient boosting (XGB) model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Reynolds with Benosman-Ganguly, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have improved the model by reducing error (Reynolds: paragraph 0079).
As per dependent claim 11, Benosman, Ganguly, and Reynolds disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 10, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman discloses wherein the input signal destined to be input to the DPD comprises a first input signal to the ML model, and wherein the training comprises:
comparing the output signal from the ML model with a target output signal and identifying an error based on the comparison (pages 328-329)
based on identifying the error, updating the first input signal to compute a new input signal destined to be input to the DPD for the next iteration (pages 241-242: Here, error is identified and training is repeated for additional iterations until convergence)
iteratively repeating the extracting, the inputting, the providing, the comparing, and the updating until the target output signal is approached (pages 241-242)
Benosman fails to specifically discloses labeling. However, Ganguly discloses labeling the extracted plurality of features to obtain at least one labelled average power level (column 16, lines 1-21: Here, data is sent to a feature extraction module. The extraction module extracts features from the data and applies labels. The data may include raw input audio data that includes average power values (column 8, line 56- column 9, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Ganguly with Benosman, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have provided the ability to extract and label data for training a neural network (Ganguly: column 16, lines 1-21) for use in digital predistortion (Benosman: page 236).
As per dependent claim 12, Benosman, Ganguly, and Reynolds disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 10, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Benosman fails to specifically disclose wherein the training is performed offline in a communication system.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have pre-trained a model in an “offline” state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Benosman-Ganguly-Reynolds, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for pre-training a model to facilitate use of the model.
As per dependent claim 13, Benosman, Ganguly, and Reynolds disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 9, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Reynolds discloses:
applying the power feature aided GB model (paragraph 0079: Here, the models may be applied and a gradient-boosted tree may be used to improve error reduction) and/or the power feature aided XGB model online to perform the providing
periodically updating the power feature aided GB model (paragraph 0079: Here, the model is retrained to improve prediction error) and/or the power feature aided XGB model with the power feature aided GB model based training (paragraph 0079) and/or the power feature aided XGB model based training to learn behavior of the DPD for the non-linear device
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Reynolds with Benosman-Ganguly, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have improved the model by reducing error (Reynolds: paragraph 0079).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zayani et al. (Ping-Pong Joint Optimization of PAPR Reduction and HPA Linearization in OFDM Systems, 2019): Discloses a joint approach for peak-to-average power ratio reduction and predistortion (Abstract)
Yu (A Generalized Digital Predistortion Model Based on Artificial Neural Networks, 2018): Discloses a digital predistortion model based on an artificial neural network (Abstract)
Wu et al. (Residual Neural Networks for Digital Predistortion, 2020): Discloses a digital predistortion model based on an artificial neural network (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights