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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Drawings as filed are accepted.
IDS are considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over
Bengtsson Erik (US 2019/0238174).
As to claims 1, 6:
Bengtsson discloses:
A method (abstract) and a full-duplex communication apparatus (Figs. 2, 3A-B); comprising: a first antenna, a second antenna, and a gating apparatus (Fig. 3A-B, at least one first antenna 340, at least one second antenna 350. See also fig. 2, Tx/Rx, gating apparatus read as switch 330)
wherein the full-duplex communication apparatus is configured to perform said method, comprising: receive a first signal from the first antenna through the gating apparatus (Fig. 3B for example, ¶0046, incoming signal is received at antenna 340 and passing through switch 330 (gating). See also ¶0064, claims 1. See Fig. 2, incoming signal 30 after received)
and perform interference suppression or cancellation on the first signal; (See ¶0040-0042, module 230 to perform interference suppression/cancellation for the incoming signal 30. See ¶0068-00069, after receiving the incoming signals, i.e. 30, dynamically adapting self-interference cancellation between the outgoing radio signals and the incoming radio signals, e.g., by controlling the self-interference cancellation module 230)
and the full-duplex communication apparatus is further configured to transmit a signal through the second antenna. (See at least Fig. 3B, 0046, , outgoing signal 20 is transmitted on the antenna 350. See also ¶0069)
As to claims 2, 7:
Bengtsson discloses all limitations of claim 1/6, wherein the full-duplex communication apparatus is further configured to:
receive a second signal from the second antenna through the gating apparatus and perform channel reciprocity measurement based on the second signal. (See ¶0060-0061, before switching to configuration 3B, the apparatus operates in configuration 3A wherein an incoming signal 30 is received at antenna 350 instead and passes through switch 330 (gating). ¶0061, 0065, claims 3-5, ¶0020, performing estimation for channel characteristic on the bases of the received incoming signal 30. Se ¶0006, “By switching between the antenna configurations, the at least one first antenna and the at least one second antenna are thus alternately used for the incoming radio signals and the outgoing radio signals. This may allow for utilizing channel reciprocity considerations when performing channel estimation”)
As to claims 3, 8:
Bengtsson discloses all limitations of claim 2/7, wherein the first signal is a radio frequency signal or a baseband signal; or the second signal is a radio frequency signal or a baseband signal.
(See at least ¶0068, 0058-0060, incoming/outgoing radio channel signals in both configuration 3A/B. See also ¶0044-0046)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson Erik (US 2019/0238174) in view of Yang et al. (US 2015/0365157).
As to claim 4:
Bengtsson discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are separate (Fig. 3A-B), however is silent on their locations, i.e. at different geographical locations, as claimed.
Yang, in a related field of multi-antenna wireless network device design, discloses in Fig. 2B, ¶0047, a wireless device 221 comprising a plurality of antennas 221A-C, wherein said antennas are geographically located away from one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to implement the device of Bengtsson with geographically distributed antennas as in Yang. Bengtsson already discloses a device with separate antennas performing individual independent communication. Yang’s distributed design employs that designs but in a spatially separated located manner. This advantageously provides better coverage quality for location far away from the main device where a receiver might not reliably reach the main device in such edge locations per Yang, ¶0150.
As to claims 5, 9:
Bengtsson discloses all limitations of claim 1/6 and regarding: the apparatus further comprising a third antenna; and the full-duplex communication apparatus receives another signal from the third antenna, and performs the interference suppression or cancellation on the first signal and another signal.
Bengtsson already discloses for any given two antennas (340, 330) pair, the full-duplex communication apparatus to receive a given incoming signal from a receiving antenna and perform suppression or cancelation on the first signal and another signal, Bengtsson generally stated in ¶0068, “dynamically adapting self-interference cancellation between the outgoing radio signals and the incoming radio signals, e.g., by controlling the self-interference cancellation module 230”.
Except Bengtsson does not explicitly show a third antenna in the fig. 3A-B.
Yang, in a related field of multi-antenna wireless network device design, discloses in Fig. 2B, ¶0047, a wireless device 221 comprising a plurality of antennas 221A, B, and C, i.e. with a third antenna.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the configurations taught by Bengtsson can cover a third antenna to perform full-duplex communication in a pair with any of the antenna 330 or 340. Bengtsson already discloses the full-duplex method as claim can occur with any configuration of antenna pair, i.e. Bengtsson generally stated in ¶0068, “dynamically adapting self-interference cancellation between the outgoing radio signals and the incoming radio signals, e.g., by controlling the self-interference cancellation module 230”. Bengtsson in at least abstract is open to having additional antenna (i.e. at least one first antenna, at least one second antenna). Therefore, having a third (or more) antenna to perform similar process with any of the 330/340 antenna can advantageously extend options for antenna selection and better coverage.
As to claims 14, 10:
Bengtsson discloses all limitations of claim 5/9, wherein the full- duplex communication apparatus is configured to implement joint interference suppression through the first antenna and the third antenna.
(Bengtsson generally stated in ¶0068, “dynamically adapting self-interference cancellation between the outgoing radio signals and the incoming radio signals, e.g., by controlling the self-interference cancellation module 230” without limiting to specific antennas. Bengtsson also in at least abstract is open to having additional antenna (i.e. at least one first antenna, at least one second antenna). Thus, in view of Yang, one of ordinary in art can arrive at performing the same interference suppression details in Bengtsson ¶0068 in any pair of the third antenna and any of 330/340.)
Claim(s) 15, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson Erik (US 2019/0238174) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2018/0279135).
As to claims 11, 15:
Bengtsson discloses all limitations of claim 1/6, however it is silent on the first signal is a baseband signal.
Bengtsson already discloses in at least fig. 3B shows incoming signal 30 arrived at antenna 340 in form of RF signal.
Hwang, in a related field of communication signal processing, discloses, for RF Tx/Rx devices, the RF incoming signal can be converted at the transceiver to baseband form (¶0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention to have the first signal of Bengtsson received at the transceiver to be converted to a baseband form by the transceiver as disclosed in Hwang. Hwang already discloses the conversion to baseband signal with the purpose that the signal is to be processed by a processor in at least ¶0027. It is well established in the art that baseband (pure/unmodulated centered at low frequency) signals are more suitable for DSPs to process, both physically and mathematically, than their form at high frequency like in radio range.
Claim(s) 12-13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson Erik (US 2019/0238174) in view of Yeh et al. (US 2012/0218979).
As to claims 12, 16:
Bengtsson discloses all limitations of claim 1/6, further comprising a radio frequency unit (Fig. 2, Tx/Rx module) however is silent on a baseband unit; wherein the gating apparatus is located between the radio frequency unit and the baseband unit.
Yeh, in a related field of wireless signal processing, discloses a communication device with antenna 210 to exchange RF signal immediately RF module 220, and a base module (¶0039).
It is well established in the art that baseband (pure/unmodulated centered at low frequency) signals are more suitable for DSPs to process, both physically and mathematically, than their form at high frequency like in radio range. Therefore, a baseband unit is implied in any communication module such as that of Bengtsson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Bengtsson’s device structure also include a baseband unit; wherein the gating apparatus is located between the radio frequency unit and the baseband unit. Bengtsson, in Fig. 2, 3A-B, already shows an Tx/Rx (RF module) having antenna receiving incoming signal, and through the gating apparatus, then through the amplifier. It is standard practice in signal processing that, in a receive path, an incoming captured by the antenna must pass through an amplifier before it can be processed by the baseband unit as a matter of practicality, i.e. amplifying signal before the baseband unit helps remove noise and establish high SNR and also fits in the ADC dynamic range before further processing. Since the amplifier is after the gating device in the receiving path, it follows that the baseband unit is after the amplifier as a matter of practicality. Therefore, the gating device 330 of Bengtsson sits between the RF module (Tx/Rx) and the baseband unit because the baseband unit requires incoming signals to be amplified for it to process them.
As to claims 13, 17:
Bengtsson in view of Ye discloses all limitations of claim 12/16, wherein the baseband unit is a building baseband unit, and the radio frequency unit is a remote radio unit. (See Bengtsson, ¶0007, Fig. 7, Fig. 1, the radio structure is housed in a base station structure, including baseband unit. See fig. 1, the base station 100 including the radio frequency unit is located a measurable distance from UE 10-B for example, which requires wireless transmission, thus the radio frequency unit is considered remote relative to the UEs moving around the cell, in absence any specific explicit definition and reference point for such terms like building/remote)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2002/0183030 - system includes the use of a frequency plan table a system for creating the frequency plan table. The frequency plan table relates carrier frequency channels to the operation of a synthesizer and a plurality of programmable frequency dividers in a locked loop. In a transmitter, a first programmable frequency divider accepts a reference signal and produces a comparison signal. A mixer accepts the reference signal and a transmission signal and produces a loop signal. A second programmable frequency divider accepts the loop signal and produces a loop signal having a divided intermediate frequency signal. A phase detector compares the comparison signal and the loop signal having a divided intermediate frequency and produces an output that controls a variable controlled oscillator. The variable controlled oscillator produces a modulated transmission signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights