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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 2, 2025 and May 30, 2025 have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
the figures include text that measure less than .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height thereby failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p);
in FIG. 2, “Digital pre-distortion processing unit 210” should be “Digital pre-distortion module 210” (for example, see paragraph [0054] and FIG. 3);
in FIG. 2, it appears that the “second output signal z(n)” should be “second output signal v(n)” (see FIGs. 8-10);
in FIG. 5, “v(n)” should be “z(n)” in order to be consistent with FIG. 2 which shows that output of the DPD module as “z(n)”; and
in FIG. 6, the examiner suggests changing “z(n)” to “zk(n)” (see paragraph [0087]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in paragraph [0140], the examiner suggests inserting “of FIG. 11” after “S1130”; and
in paragraph [0143], the examiner suggests inserting “of FIG. 11” after “S1140”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 1, the comma after “circuit” should be deleted;
in claim 3, line 2, the examiner suggests changing “sub-circuits” to “sub-circuitries” or another term to differentiate the “N DPD sub-circuits” from “DPD sub-circuit” on line 1;
in claim 5, line 1, “the DPD circuit” should be “the DPD sub-circuit”;
in claim 6, line 1, the comma after “method” should be deleted;
in claim 7, lines 1-4 should be replaced with the following:
“The method of claim 6, wherein determining the first coefficient comprises determining, based on the first feature, N first sub-coefficients;
wherein determining the second coefficient comprises determining, based on the second feature, N second sub-coefficients;”
in claim 9, line 1, the comma after “apparatus” should be deleted; and
dependent claim(s) are objected to under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17-20 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.
With regard to claim 17, it is unclear how using a Volterra model to generate the first output signal relates to the DPD circuit configuration that also generates the “first output signal” (see claim 9, lines 4-15). Claim 9 recites that the DPD circuit is configured to performed a series of steps to “generate… a first output signal” whereas claim 17 recites that the DPD circuit uses a Volterra model “to generate the first output signal.” It is unclear if there are two different ways of generating “the first output signal” or if “using a Volterra model” relates to the steps that generate “the first output signal.”
With regard to claim 18, it is unclear how using a Hammerstein model to generate the first output signal relates to the DPD circuit configuration that generates the “first output signal” (see claim 9, lines 4-15). Claim 9 recites that the DPD circuit is configured to performed a series of steps to “generate… a first output signal” whereas claim 18 recites that the DPD circuit uses a Hammerstein model “to generate the first output signal.” It is unclear if there are two different ways of generating “the first output signal” or if “using a Hammerstein model” relates to the steps that generate “the first output signal.”
With regard to claim 19, it is unclear how using a Weiner model to generate the first output signal relates to the DPD circuit configuration that generates the “first output signal” (see claim 9, lines 4-15). Claim 9 recites that the DPD circuit is configured to performed a series of steps to “generate… a first output signal” whereas claim 19 recites that the DPD circuit uses a Weiner model “to generate the first output signal.” It is unclear if there are two different ways of generating “the first output signal” or if “using a Weiner model” relates to the steps that generate “the first output signal.”
With regard to claim 20, it is unclear how using a polynomial model to generate the first output signal relates to the DPD circuit configuration that generates the “first output signal” (see claim 9, lines 4-15). Claim 9 recites that the DPD circuit is configured to performed a series of steps to “generate… a first output signal” whereas claim 20 recites that the DPD circuit uses a polynomial model “to generate the first output signal.” It is unclear if there are two different ways of generating “the first output signal” or if “using a polynomial model” relates to the steps that generate “the first output signal.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowable if the claim objections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art of record does not teach or suggests a digital pre-distortion circuit comprising a DPD configured to perform the steps in claim 1, lines 3-14 in combination with the power amplifier configured to amplify the first output signal to generate a second output signal. Although Hammi (US Patent No. 9,214,969 B2) and Maa et al. (US Patent No. 11,082,013 B2), respectively, disclose a predistortion system and method that obtains a first feature of a first input signal and a second feature of the first input signal, neither reference discloses the determining steps and generating steps in claim 1, lines 11-14. Independent claims 6 and 9 are allowable for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references disclose a predistortion system/method: Song et al. (US Publication No. 2005/0253652 A1); Hammi (US Patent No. 9,214,969 B2); and Maa et al. (US Patent No. 11,082,013 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights