DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-7 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Please refer to Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers, titles, and/or author or inventor names.
Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections.
Notice of Pre-AIA AIA Status
The present application, filed on after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first invent to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 5 (and 6 by way of it’s dependency) is 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…filter out an unwanted spectrum…”. There is no recognized industry term that has clear metes and bounds for which portions of spectrum are unwanted. Unwanted is a subjective term. Applicant did not provide an explicit definition for “unwanted spectrum” and merely gave examples. The claim language indicates that unwanted spectrum has a subset of transition band s 3 and 16 recite: “in response to the replica of the second identification matches the second identification, present, by the second network, the first identification on an interface of a user equipment associated with the callee; and in response to the replica of the second identification does not match the second identification, present, by the second network, a notification on the interface, the notification indicative of the caller being not verified” (emphasis added). [A]nd makes this a conjunctive requirement. The system cannot have both a match and a non-match from the same determination. As both states cannot be true the claim has no exact metes and bounds. For the purposes of prior art examination, the “and” was interpreted to be conditional and read as “or”.
Similar but nor mirrored claim 11 avoids this issue by use of the word “or”. This was used as a justification to apply “or” to claims 3 and 16.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by “PIM Cancellation Architecture” by Zhao et al., US2024/0113738A1
With respect to Claim 1, Zhao discloses, a method for providing passive intermodulation (PIM) interference cancellation in dual- band wireless 5G networks comprising the steps of:
identifying a PIM source generating PIM interference (Zhao at ¶¶37-39 where the system measures the TX data and determines whether to adjust for PIM based on the calibration readings);
performing frequency analysis to determine a set of terms for modelling the PIM source (Zhao at ¶37 “In one embodiment, to configure the TX modeling circuit 410, the base station transmits calibration data from the along the TX channel 115. The base station can include a coupler at the duplexer that measures the calibration data after it passes through the TX channel 115. The coupler can then transmit the received calibration data back to the IC 105 where it is measured to determine the characteristics of the TX channel. These characteristics are then used to program or configure the TX modeling circuit 410 so it mimics the behavior of the TX channel 115. That is, the TX modeling circuit 410 can take the input (x(n)) of the TX channel 115 and generate an output (z(n)) that matches the output of the TX channel 115. One example of modeling the TX channel 115 is described in FIG. 9B below”) ;
scoping sample rate (Zhao at ¶38 where the equalizer is calibrated at intervals, and ¶58 where samples are captured), frequency offsets (Zhao at ¶39 where frequency delays are accounted for), non-linear functions (Zhao at ¶61), filtering (Zhao at ¶58), equalizer and model identification operations (Zhao at ¶38 where the equalizer is calibrated at intervals);
detecting a presence of PIM interference in an UpLink (UL) signal and perform estimation delays (Zhao at ¶40);
performing PIM identification (PIMI) on PIM coefficients to combine non-linear terms to match the detected PIM interference (Zhao at ¶68 where the PIM modeling circuit calculated coefficients on nonlinear functions to compensate for PIM);
and
generating a filtered signal by performing real-time PIM cancellation (PIMC) by subtraction in the time-domain of the modelled PIM interference (Zhao at ¶48 where the PIM modeling including subtraction is then forwarded to the subtraction circuit which converts the subtraction from the frequency domain to the time domain using a fast Fourier transform.
With respect to Claim 2, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of detecting a presence of PIM interference in an UL signal comprises using a Transmit (TX) signal as a direct input for cancellation modeling to minimize the bandwidth and the sample rates required for modelling PIM interference (Zhao at ¶¶37-40 which outlines the modeling performed on the TX signal to determine how to offset PIM).
With respect to Claim 3, Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each non-linear term is modelled separately using an existing baseband for a DownLink (DL) signal (Zhao at ¶42 where the system can use the PIM modeling techniques on the RX signal).
With respect to Claim 5, Zhao discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the step of performing PIM identification further includes the step of: performing UL band modelling to filter out an unwanted spectrum including a transition band (Zhao at ¶17 where modeling is used to remove, i.e., filter, PIM from transition bandwidth) and DownLink (DL) bands (Zhao at ¶18 where modeling is used to remove, i.e., filter, PIM from the RX, i.e., downlink).
With respect to Claim 6, Zhao discloses the method of The method of claim 5, wherein the step of performing real-time PIM cancellation further includes the step of: performing down-sampling to remove data points from the filtered signal to reduce resource utilization. (This is similar to Claim 4. Again Applicant claimed what is inherently a feature of sampling with respect to computer processing. The more data points (samples) a model has to process the longer it takes. It is a tradeoff of speed for a theoretically more refined/accurate model. More inputs lead to more time to get the output. Reducing the number of data points (in this case down to one), would speed up the processing of the model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention herein who would want to utilize this axiom to save time, would practice the method of Zhao with a decimated sampling rate.)
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 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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Official Notice
With respect to Claim 4, while Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein PIMI and PIMC filtering is only performed on an UL band (Zhao at ¶37); Zhao does not explicitly state: and a cancellation sampling rate is decimated to mitigate processing complexity and reduce resource utilization.
However, the concept is well known in the art. Zhao does mention at ¶64 the notion of tracking how many samples are taken, and the remainder of the concept is well known in the art. Examiner notes Applicant’s explicit definition of decimation in their specification at ¶28 “[0028] The term “decimation” as used herein means the process of reducing the sampling rate of a signal by a value and don't distort the interested spectrum of the signal by applying a decimation filter. Decimation works by merging every N sample into one. The decimation factor is an integer or a rational fraction greater than one.”
Applicant claimed what is inherently a well known feature of sampling with respect to computer processing. Examiner takes official notice of this. The more data points (samples) a model has to process the longer it takes. It is a tradeoff of speed for a theoretically more refined/accurate model. More inputs lead to more time to get the output. Reducing the number of data points (in this case down to one), would speed up the processing of the model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention herein who would want to utilize this axiom to save time, would practice the method of Zhao with a decimated sampling rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p.
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, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan at 571-272-7855. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights