PATENT COOPERATION TREATY

From the INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY

To: PCT
YOON & LEE INTERNATIONAL PATENT & LAY FIRM

3rd FI, Ace Highend WRITTEN OPINION OF THE

Tower-5, 226, Gasan Digital INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
1-ro, Geumcheon-gu Seoul
08502 Republic of Korea
(PCT Rule 43bis.1)

Date of mailing
(day/month/year) 02 February 2023
Applicant's or agent's file reference FOR FURTHER ACTION
F202208-0056 See paragraph 2 below
International application No. International filing date (day/month/vear) Priority date (day/month/year)
PCT/KR2022/016243 24 October 2022 28 October 2021
International Patent Classification (IPC) or both national classification and [PC
HO3F 1/32(2006.01)i; GO6N 3/06(2006.01)i; HO3F 1/02(2006.01)i

Applicant SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

1. This opinion contains indications relating to the following items:

Basis of the opinion
Priority
] Box No. 1l Non-establishment of opinion with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability
IV Lack of unity of invention
.V Reasoned statement under Rule 43bis.1(a)(i) with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability:
citations and explanations supporting such statement
. VI Certain documents cited
. VIL Certain defects in the international application
] Box No. VIl Certain observations on the international application
FURTHER ACTION
o

If a demand for international preliminary examination is made, this opinion will be considered to be a written opinion of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority (“IPEA”) except that this does not apply where the applicant chooses an Authority
other than this one to be the IPEA and the chosen IPEA has notified the International Bureau under Rule 66.1bis(b) that written
opinions of this International Searching Authority will not be so considered.
If this opinion is. as provided above, considered to be a written opinion of the IPEA, the applicant is invited to submit to the IPEA
a written reply together, where appropriate, with amendments, before the expiration of 3 months from the date of mailing of Form
PCT/ISA/220 or before the expiration of 22 months from the priority date, whichever expires later.
For further options, see Form PCT/ISA/220.

Name and mailing address of the ISA/KR Date of completion of this opinion Authorized officer
Korean Intellectual Property Office
.
02 Febr uary 2023
189 Cheongsa-ro, Seo-gu, Daejeon,
35208 PARK, Hye Lyun

Facsimile No. +82-42-481-8578 Telephone No. +82-42-481-3463

Form PCT/ISA/237 (cover sheel) (uly 2022)
 WRITTEN OPINION OF THE International application No.
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY
PCT/KR2022/016243

Box No. I Basis of the opinion

1. With regard to the language, this opinion has been established on the basis of:
the international application in the language in which it was filed.
1 a wanstation of the international application into which is the language of a translation
furnished for the purposes of international search (Rules 12.3(a) and 23.1(b)).

2. ] This opinion has been established taking into account the rectification of an obvious mistake authorized by or notified to
this Authority under Rule 91 (Rule 43bis.1(b)).
3. [] With regard to any nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosed in the international application, this opinion has been
established on the basis of a sequence listing:
a. [ forming part of the international application as filed.
b, [] fumished subsequent to the intemational filing date for the purposes of international search (Rule 13ter.
1 (@)),
] accompanied by a statement to the effect that the sequence listing does not go beyond the disclosure in the international
application as filed.

4. [0 With regard to any nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence disclosed in the interational application, this opinion has been
established 1o the extent that a meaningful opinion could be formed without a WIPO Standard ST.26 compliant sequence
listing.
5. Additional comments:

Form PCT/ISA/237 (Box No. I) (July 2022)

 WRITTEN OPINION OF THE International application No.
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY PCT/KR2022/016243

Reasoned statement under Rule 43bis.1(a)(i) with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability;
BoxNo. v citations and explanations supporting such statement

1. Statement
Novelty (N) Claims 1-15 YES
Claims NONE NO
Inventive step (IS) Claims NONE YES
Claims 1-15 NO
Industrial applicability (IA) Claims 1-15 YES
Claims NONE NO

2. Citations and explanations:

Reference is made to the following documents:

D1: KR 10-2021-0050961 A (SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.) 10 May 2021
D2: US 2007-0133713 A1 (SPENDIM DALIPI) 14 June 2007

L. Novelty and Inventive Step (PCT Article 33(2) and (3))

1. Claims 1,9

D1, which is considered to be the closest prior art to the subject matter of claim 1, discloses a method
comprising: obtaining a pre-distorter configured to pre-distort an input signal of an amplifier by using a
pretrained neural network model to pre-distort the input signal of the amplifier based on signals input to and
output from the amplifier (see claim 1 in D1); and pre-distorting the input signal by using the pre-distorter
based on obtained environmental information to prevent an output signal in response to the input signal to be
processed by the amplifier from being distorted (see claim 1 in D1).

The subject matter of claim 1 differs from that of D1 in that "the NN based DPD comprises at least one
sub-network from a plurality of sub-networks". However, this different feature is merely a variation of the
disclosure of D2 that a training method comprises an individual look-up table for each filter tap (see claim 1 in
D2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine D1 and D2 to arrive at
the claimed subject matter.

The subject matter of claim 9 relates to an apparatus and has substantially the same technical features as
claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Accordingly, the same reasoning as in claim 1 applies to
claim 9.

Therefore, claims 1, 9 would have been obvious over D1 in view of D2 and lack an inventive step.

2. Claims 7, 15

D1, which is considered to be the closest prior art to the subject matter of claim 7, discloses a method
comprising: acquiring signals input to and output from an amplifier (see claim 1 in D1); and pre-distorting the
input signal by using a pre-distorter based on obtained environmental information to prevent an output signal in
response to the input signal to be processed by the amplifier from being distorted (see claim 1 in D1).

The subject matter of claim 7 differs from that of D1 in "determining, by the apparatus, an inverse function
maps normalized output data of the PA to the input data of the PA, wherein the neural network comprises at
least one sub-network for at least one memory tap from a plurality of memory tap in the neural network; and
modifying, by the apparatus, the input data based on the determined inverse function value by dynamically
changing a usage of the at least one memory tap from the plurality of memory taps". However, these different
features are merely variations of the disclosure of D2 such as storing measured unamplified input signal
samples and corresponding power amplifier output signal feedback samples (see claim 1 in D2), wherein a
training method comprises an individual look-up table for each filter tap (see claim 1 in D2); and determining
look-up table filter coefficients for each filter tap by separate independent iterative procedures using said stored

Form PCT/ISA/237 (Box No. V) (July 2022)

 WRITTEN OPINION OF THE International application No.
INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY PCT/KR2022/016243

Reasoned statement under Rule 43bis.1(a)(i) with regard to novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability;
Box No. V
citations and explanations supporting such statement
samples (see claim 1 in D2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to combine
D1 and D2 to arrive at the claimed subject matter.

The subject matter of claim 15 relates to an apparatus and has substantially the same technical features as
claim 7, differing only in the category of invention. Accordingly, the same reasoning as in claim 7 applies to
claim 15.

Therefore, claims 7, 15 would have been obvious over D1 in view of D2 and lack an inventive step.

3. Claims 2-6, 8, 10-14

The additional features of claims 2, 10 would be easily derived from the disclosure of D1 (see claim 8: pre-
distorting the input signal by using the pre-distorter, inputting the pre-distorted input signal to the amplifier and
transmitting a signal output from the amplifier).

The additional features of claims 3, 11 are merely variations of the disclosure of D2 (see paragraph [53]: by
summing the absolute values of the differences between corresponding entries of the current table estimates and
the previous estimates and testing whether the obtained sum is smaller than a predetermined threshold; and if
the model has converged, copying the current table estimates over to the pre-distorter).

The additional features of claims 4, 12 are merely matters of design option when the general knowledge in
the relevant field of the art is used.

The additional features of claims 5-6, 8, 13-14 are merely variations of the disclosure of D2 (see claim 1:
storing measured unamplified input signal samples and corresponding power amplifier output signal feedback
samples; and determining look-up table filter coefficients for each filter tap by separate independent iterative
procedures using said stored samples).

Therefore, claims 2-6, 8, 10-14 would have been obvious over D1 in view of D2 and lack an inventive step.

11 Industrial Applicability (PCT Article 33(4))

Claims 1-15 are industrially applicable.

#* "the PA wherein", "modifying" and "compensating” in claim 15 are considered to be writing errors for "the
PA, wherein", "modify" and "compensate", respectively.

Form PCT/ISA/237 (Box No. V) (July 2022)