DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
The drawings of November 11, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
In claim 4, the typographical error, “180 degrees phase shift” has been noted. It should be corrected to read, “180 degree phase shift.”
In claim 18, the typographical error, “180 degrees phase shift” has been noted. It should be corrected to read, “180 degree phase shift.”
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-10 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.
Overall, independent claim 1 is indefinite and unclear in that the claim is presented in its preamble as being directed to a “method for feedforward and feedback coupling cancellation” (line 1), but lines 9-13 of the claim express feedforward coupling cancellation and feedback coupling cancellation as alternatives. The claim is essentially two different method claims spliced together. And, the overall “method” of claim does not do both of the recited cancellations.
Each of dependent claims 2-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (‘139).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of antenna systems.
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. A method for feedforward and feedback coupling cancellation, the method comprising: obtaining a radio frequency (RF) signal at a first individual front end (FE) of a serially fed FE network; transmitting the RF signal from a first antenna element coupled to the first individual FE; transmitting a through path RF signal associated with the RF signal to a second individual FE of the serially fed FE network; transmitting the through path RF signal from a second antenna element coupled to the second individual FE; and cancelling a feedback component associated with transmission of the RF signal from the first antenna element with a feedback component associated with transmission of the through path RF signal from the second antenna element or cancelling a feedforward component associated with transmission of the RF signal from the first antenna element with a feedforward component associated with transmission of the through path RF signal from the second antenna element.”
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, Choi et al (‘139) plainly discloses a “method for feedforward and feedback coupling cancellation” (line 1), noting, for example, paragraph [0001] at lines 2-3, and, paragraph [0010] at lines 1-2.
The claim language, “obtaining a radio frequency (RF) signal at a first individual front end (FE) of a serially fed FE network” (lines 2-3) is met in Choi et al (‘139), at least, by the obtaining of signal A at the “TX RF Frontend” 415 as illustrated in drawing Figure 1. Although Choi et al (‘139) does not state that the “network” is serially-fed, in that Choi et al (‘139) does not disclose that the “network” is fed in parallel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed that a device that is not operating in parallel would be operating in series. Choi et al (‘139) discloses the use of a network in paragraph [0027] at lines 11-17.
The claim 1 limitation, “transmitting the RF signal from a first antenna element coupled to the first individual FE” (line 4) is met in Choi et al (‘139) as modified above by the transmitting of the signal from antenna 405 in drawing Figure 1.
The claim 1 limitation, “transmitting a through path RF signal associated with the RF signal to a second individual FE of the serially fed FE network” (lines 5-6) is met in Choi et al (‘139) as modified above by the transmitting of a leakage signal from antenna 405 in drawing Figure 1 to “RX RF Frontend” 426 in drawing Figure 1.
The claim 1 limitation, “transmitting the through path RF signal from a second antenna element coupled to the second individual FE” (lines 7-8) is met in Choi et al (‘139) as modified above by antenna 410 in drawing Figure 1 transmitting the signal to “RX RF Frontend” 420 in drawing Figure 1.
The claim 1 limitations, “cancelling a feedback component associated with transmission of the RF signal from the first antenna element with a feedback component associated with transmission of the through path RF signal from the second antenna element or cancelling a feedforward component associated with transmission of the RF signal from the first antenna element with a feedforward component associated with transmission of the through path RF signal from the second antenna element” (lines 9-13) are met in Choi et al (‘139) as modified above by the “Self-Interference cancellation” unit 450 in drawing Figure 1 using feedforward and feedback paths. For example, please note paragraphs [48] and [49] (disclosing feedback paths); paragraphs [32], {37], [39], [52]-[54], and [56]-[57] (disclosing feedforward paths); and, paragraphs [61]-[62] (disclosing both feedforward and feedback paths).
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Choi et al (‘139) as modified above, independent claim 1 is obvious over Choi et al (‘139).
With respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 2, these would be met by any phase shift being introduced in the path of a signal that ultimately originates at “TX RF Frontend” 115 in drawing Figure 1. For example, please note the phase shift in paragraph [0033] at lines 7-9. Phase shifts are introduced variously in Choi et al (‘139) as mentioned in paragraphs [33]-[35] and [42]-[46]. So, the further limitations of dependent claim 2 are met by Choi et al (‘139) as modified above and applied to independent claim 1.
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met by Choi et al (‘139) as modified above and applied to claims 1 and 2, noting, for example, paragraph [0033] at lines 7-9, and, paragraph [0035] at lines 3-9.
The further limitations of dependent claim 4 are met by Choi et al (‘139) as modified above and applied to claims 1 and 2, noting, for example, paragraph [0013] (noting 180°), and, paragraph [0042] at lines 3-8 (noting 180°).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the “Self-interference cancellation” 450 in drawing Figure 1 of Choi et al (‘139) could be moved to the position of “Signal Combiner” 435 while eliminating “Signal Combiner” 435 for the advantage of reducing hardware, bulk, and cost, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 6, these are met by Choi et al (‘139) as applied above to independent claim 1, noting, for example, paragraph [33] at lines 7-9; paragraph [34] at lines 7-9; paragraph [35] at lines 3-9; paragraph [37] (noting “variable amount”); paragraph [42] and, paragraph [43].
Next, looking to the further limitations of each of dependent claims 8-10, in that Choi et al (‘139) variously introduces phase shifts in different patterns in each of the parallel lines of the “Self-interference cancellation” unit 450 as illustrated in Figure 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try different patterns for these lines of the “Self-interference cancellation” unit 450 from among the large number of possible patterns in order to optimize the functioning of the claimed method, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
With respect to independent claim 11, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1. Further, the “first through path port” is the port for antenna 405 in Figure 1 of Choi et al (‘139), and, the “second through path port” is the port for antenna 410 in Figure 1 of Choi et al (‘1390. Independent claim 11 is obvious over Choi et al (‘139).
The further limitations of dependent claim 13 are substantially-met by Choi et al (‘139) as applied above to independent claim 11 or independent claim 1, except that the “first individual FE” would be read on “RX RF Frontend” 420 in Figure 1. So, claim 13 is obvious over Choi et al (‘139).
As for the further limitations of each of dependent claims 14 and 15, in that Choi et al (‘139) discloses the use of the invention with antennas generally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Choi et al (‘139) could be use with any suitable antenna arrangement, including one with a “beamformed signal” (claim 14) or one with a “digital beamformer” (claim 15).
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 16 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 17 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 3.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 18 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 4.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 19 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 6.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (‘139) in view of Chen et al (‘773).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of antenna systems.
First of all, claim 7 is rejected using Choi et al (‘139) as applied above to claims 1 and 6. However, the further limitations of dependent claim 7 are not disclosed in Choi et al (‘139). In Choi et al (‘139), the “Self-interference cancellation” unit 450 uses parallel lines as illustrated in drawing Figure 3 in order to implement different phase shifts. For example, in Choi et al (‘139), please note paragraph [33] at lines 7-9; paragraph [34] at lines 7-9; paragraph [35] at lines 3-9; paragraph [37] (noting “variable amount”); paragraph [42] and, paragraph [43].
Chen et al (‘773) in the same field of endeavor as Choi et al (‘139) teaches the use of a digitally-controlled monolithic active phase shifter for the advantages of “small incident phase changes”; “extremely fine accuracy”; and, “small size,” noting, for example, column 4 at lines 3-11.
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Chen et al (‘773) phase shifter in Choi et al (‘139) to substitute variously for phase shifts implemented by single, fixed components in Choi et al (‘139) in order to obtain the advantages taught by Chen et al (‘773) and in order to obtain the advantage of greatly reducing the number of components implementing phase shift, thereby reducing cost, weight, and size. Thus, the further limitations in dependent claim 7 are obvious over the applied combination of Choi et al (‘139) in view of Chen et al (‘773).
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 20 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 7.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
None of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious the claimed subject of independent claim 11 combined with dependent claim 12, being particularly characterized by the claimed subject matter of dependent claim 12. The claimed subject matter of dependent claim 12 is not disclosed in any of the prior art of record.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Webb et al (‘712) is of general interest for the disclosure related to feedforward cancelling, showing the general state of the related prior art. Webb et al (‘712) could not be used alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record in that it does not disclose the claimed features related to feedback coupling and cancelling components of feedback coupling.
Fudge et al (‘866) is of general interest for the disclosure related to interference cancellation, showing the general state of the related prior art. Fudge et al (‘866) could not be used alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record in that it does not disclose the claimed features related to feedforward and feedback cancellation.
Wyville (‘071) is of general interest for the disclosure related to feedforward cancelling, showing the general state of the related prior art. Wyville (‘071) could not be used alone or in any possible combination with the prior art of record in that it does not disclose the claimed features related to feedback coupling and cancelling components of feedback coupling.
Dunn (‘330) is of general interest for the disclosure related to active cancellation of coupling effects, but Dunn (‘330) fails to disclose the claimed “feedforward and feedback coupling cancellation” as recited in, at least, independent claims 1 and 11. It is noted that Dunn (‘330) lists U. S. patents in column 21 at lines 6-31, generally suggesting that subject matter from these patents might be used together with Dunn (‘330). Among these listed patents in Dunn (‘330), Webb et al (‘712) is listed (see above in this section). Neither Dunn (‘330) taken alone or taken in any possible combination with the prior art of record would arrive at the claimed subject matter as recited in, at least, independent claims 1 and 11.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights