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 .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Reason for Allowance
5. Claims 1-18 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Interpreting the claims in light of the specification and based on applicant’s argument, examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art does not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU et al (Pub No. 2022/0029761) and further in view of Gorbachov et al (Pub No. 2011/0165848).
Regarding claim 19, SU et al discloses a method for mitigating energy transmitted on subcarriers in a communications network (Fig. 24: Transmit resource configuring & Para. 406: Physical resources allocating), the method comprising: receiving an analog signal from a transceiver module, the analog signal comprising a plurality of Physical Resource Blocks (Para. 731: Analog signals & Para. 317: Physical resource blocks) & (Para. 156 & 245: Analog reference signal with physical resources); separating the PRBs into two or more frequency bands, at least one of the two or more frequency bands comprising only blanked PRBs (Para. 846 & 848: frequency resource blocks are divided into threes parts) & (Para. 812);
distributing the at least one frequency band comprising only blanked PRBs to an amplifier (Para. 254 & 257: Configuring blank resources for terminal & Para. 731: Power amplifier receives frequency signals to amplify) & (Para. 258: Terminal transmit blank resources).
SU does not explicitly disclose selectively deactivating the amplifier.
Gorbachov discloses the device can separating two or more frequency bands (Fig. 6: 5 GHz & 2.4 GHz frequency band on the separate channel & Para. 112-114), amplify signals using frequency band and selectively deactivating the amplifier (Para. 42 & Para. 85: Transistors Q1 and Q2 of the first operating frequency band power amplifier are deactivated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the front-end circuit for frequency control system of Gorbachov’s disclosure with the physical resource block allocation system, as taught by SU. Doing so would have resulted in effectively selecting power amplifier based on frequency band for power control and adjust interference in the RF system.
Regarding claim 20, SU et al is silent regarding amplifying the analog signal subsequent to deactivating the amplifier.
Gorbachov discloses amplifying the analog signal subsequent to deactivating the amplifier (Para. 42: Activate and deactivate amplifier & Para. 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the amplifiers to amplify signal and deactivate the other amplifier to adjust power in the system.
Other Reference
7. Another Reference, Khlat et al (Pub No. 2014/0038675) discloses power management system for RF circuitry and RF front end. The RF circuitry includes a first power amplifier for amplifying first signals and a second PA for amplifying second signals. The power supply is also adapted to selectively supply power to the PA. A control system is adapted to selectively enable and disable the first PA, the second PA to control wireless signals. Transmit block transmit multi carrier signals for wireless communication.
Response to Arguments
8. i. Applicant’s arguments, with regards to claim 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
ii. Applicant argues prior art does not disclose the frequency band comprising blanked PRBs and selectively deactivate the amplifier.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant arguments because prior art either explicitly or inherently discloses each and every aspect of the above limitations. SU discloses the system can separate the resource PRBs into two or more frequency bands, at least one of the two or more frequency bands comprising only blanked PRBs (frequency resource blocks are divided into three parts including blank PRB, that is frequency bands with blanked PRBs -see Para. Para. 846 & 848 & 812).
Distributing at least one frequency band comprising only blanked PRBs to an amplifier (separate blank resources for terminal and Terminal transmit blank resources & Power amplifier receives frequency signals to amplify– see Para. 254 & 257-258 & 731 & FIG. 10-11. Blank resources with a larger bandwidth may be configured to enable a terminal operating to transmit signals which have a larger bandwidth).
Gorbachov discloses the device can selectively deactivating the amplifier (power amplifier are deactivated – see Para. 42 & Para. 85).
iv. According to KSR “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be “so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. See 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap.” MPEP § 2141 (III) RATIONALES TO SUPPORT REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 (emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, applicant arguments related to claims are not persuasive.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Patent Examiner Md Talukder whose telephone number is (571) 270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Th 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867.
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.
/MD K TALUKDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights