DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Comment re claim 1.
Claim 1, line 1, the limitation “the processing signals” are understood to include, collectively, the limitation “processing input signal”, recited in claim 1, lines 2-3 and “processing the predistortion signal” recited in claim 1, line 5.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 4 “ real part” is mistyped as “ real parr”; claim 5, line 5, shouldn’t “value” be replaced by “values”?
Claim 8, line 4 recites “a second weight vector” without a limitation to “a first weight vector”.
Claim 10, line 2, please spell out “tanh” as recited in the claim.
As per claim 12, line 1, “comprising” should be replaced by “comprising:”; claim 12, line 2, please delete “implement”; claim 12, line 3, please replace “determining” by “determine”; claim 12, line 6, please replace “generating” by “generate”.
Claim 15, line 5, shouldn’t “value” be replaced by “values”?
As per claim 20, with respect to “tanh”, see claim 10, line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al US 8,013,676.
As per claim 1, Su et al discloses a method and apparatus for processing signals (fig. 1), comprising: determining a predistortion signal (note output of element 105) corresponding to an input signal (note input to 105’) by processing the input signal through a multi-stage predistortion model (105’ is a first stage predistortion model and 105 is another stage predistortion model (collectively correspond to the limitation ”multi-stage pre-distortion model” that is based on neural network processing (see col. 4, lines 34-40); and generating a transmission waveform (“output” of 102) by processing the predistortion signal (output of 105) through transmission electronics ( at least 101 and 102 and Su et al further teaches in col. 1, line 11-13 that the invention is in the field of electronic technology and more particularly to a high-efficiency power amplifier).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Su et al US 8,013,676 in view of Jin et al US20050140438.
As per claim 11, Su et al does not explicitly teach the input signal and the predistortion signal comprise complex values. Jin et al teaches an input signal and a predistorted signal as including complex signal (values) (see Jin et al page 4, claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have configured Su et al to configure the input signal and the predistorted signal to include complex values in the manner taught by Jin et al in order to shape the signal in a format suitable for transmission for compliance with the signal spectrum.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Su et al US 8,013,676 in view of Tanio US 2023/0275788 A1.
As per claim 12, Su et al discloses a method and apparatus for processing signals (fig. 1), comprising: determining a predistortion signal (note output of element 105) corresponding to an input signal (note input to 105’) by processing the input signal through a multi-stage predistortion model (105’ is a first stage predistortion model and 105 is another stage predistortion model (collectively correspond to the limitation ”multi-stage pre-distortion model” that is based on neural network processing (see col. 4, lines 34-40); and generating a transmission waveform (“output” of 102) by processing the predistortion signal (output of 105) through transmission electronics ( at least 101 and 102 and Su et al further teaches in col. 1, line 11-13 that the invention is in the field of electronic technology and more particularly to a high-efficiency power amplifier). However, Su et al fail to teach a processor configured to perform the method steps. Tanio teaches a similar method and apparatus including a processor configured to perform the method steps (note at least claim 1 at page 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have modified Su et al by providing a processor to implement the method steps in order to reduce the size of the transmission signal apparatus (Tanio para. [0024]).
As per claim 13, see rejection of claim 12. In addition, Su et al do not teach a non-transitory computer readable medium having code when executed by a processor causing the processor to implement the method steps. Tanio teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having code when executed by a processor causing the processor to implement the method steps (see Tanio page 16, claim 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have modify Su et al by providing a non-transitory computer readable medium having code when executed by a processor causing the processor to implement the method steps and the motivation to do so would have been the same as provided with respect to claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 14-20 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. Note that the claims must be further amended, if required, to address any claim objection set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN B CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-3020. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-3:00PM Monday-Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEAN B CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633