DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Objections
3. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “The method of claim 21 25” which should be corrected as “The method of claim 21 .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first reference signal processing component, a coarse channel estimation component, a coarse channel equalization component, a nonlinear modeling component, a digital post distortion (DPOD) component, a fine channel estimation component in claims 3, 19, 28, 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 3, 19, 28, and 30 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 3, 19, 28, and 30 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because it recites generic placeholders (components) performing functions without reciting sufficient structure to perform the functions.
Component is a generic placeholder that does not specify any structure, and the specification does not provide any structure associated with the claimed components. Specification further discloses that the components can be implanted in software (Par 0038). Therefore, it is not clear which structure/hardware performs the functions of the claimed components (a first reference signal processing component, a coarse channel estimation component, a coarse channel equalization component, a nonlinear modeling component, a digital post distortion (DPOD) component, a fine channel estimation component).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-2, 18, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pajukoski et al (WO 2022073615 A1, hereinafter referred to as Pajukoski).
Re claim 1, Pajukoski teaches a network node (gNB, Fig. 2, Fig. 8) for wireless communication, comprising:
(i) a memory (808) (Fig. 8, Par 0114); and
(ii) one or more processors (804) coupled to the memory (808) (Fig. 8, Par 0114-0117) and configured to cause the network node to:
(iii) transmit a nonlinear modeling capability indication (triggering/configuring training reference signal with a backoff value, Fig. 2) associated with a nonlinear modeling configuration of the network node (Power amplifier (PA) model of the gNB) (Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Par 0030, Par 0034-0038, Par 0052-0054, Par 0064, Par 0080, Par 0083); and
(iv) receive, based on the nonlinear modeling capability indication (triggering/configuring training reference signal with a backoff value, Fig. 2), a communication in a slot (receiving training RS), wherein the communication includes a data signal (symbol with training RS, Fig. 3) and at least one demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (Symbol with associated DMRS, Fig. 3) (Fig. 2-3, Fig. 7, Par 0038-0042, Par 0052, Par 0057-0062, Par 0085), wherein the at least one DMRS (DMRS 320, Fig. 3) is associated with a single transmission power value (Power level associated with the DMRS 320, Fig. 3) (Fig. 2-3, Par 0038-0042, Par 0057-0062).
Claim 18 recites a method performing the functions recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 27 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions to be executed to perform the functions recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 29 recites an apparatus performing the functions recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Re claim 2, Pajukoski teaches that the nonlinear modeling configuration comprises at least one of a hardware configuration or a firmware configuration (distortion function of a PA model) (Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Par 0035-0038, Par 0060, Par 0064, Par 0069-0070).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-17 and 20-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 19, 28, and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Pajukoski et al (WO 2022073615 A1) discloses to train a PA model to determine a correction signal to mitigate distortion caused by the non-linearities of the power amplifier (Fig. 2, Fig. 5). Pajukoski does not disclose to determine a fine channel estimation based on a filtered coarse channel estimation obtained from an equalized coarse linear channel estimation. Pajukoski is also silent about a second DPOD procedure.
Nammi et al (WO 2023106977 A1) discloses that a receiver transmits capability information indicating decoding capability non-linear signals. In response to the capability information, the receiver receives signal from a transmitting node and jointly estimates channel coefficients and coefficients of the nonlinearity of the received signal (Fig. 9-10, Fig. 12, Pg. 10-13). Nammi does not disclose to determine a fine channel estimation based on a filtered coarse channel estimation obtained from an equalized coarse linear channel estimation. Nammi is also silent about a second DPOD procedure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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.
/HARUN CHOWDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights