DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed on 7/17/2025.
Currently, claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 16-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 2 and 16-21 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.
Where independent claim 2, line 1 states “A radio-node, the radio node being configured to:”, where line 1 of independent claim 2 fails to recite a recognized transitions phrase (e.g. “comprising” or “including”, which are both examples of ‘open-ended’ transitional phrase, see MPEP 2111.03). Furthermore, the specification fails to define other wording within the quotation (e.g. “configured” or “configured to”) in regards to being a transitional phase (e.g. none of these words are defined to be open-ended or closed-ended by the instant specification, as pursuant to MPEP 2111.03.IV). Therefore, the scope of independent claim 2 is indefinite since claim 2 fails to “define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim” (see MPEP 2111.03 as well as MPEP 2111.03.IV).
Additionally, dependent claims 16-21 each fail to adequately mitigate the indefiniteness issues of claim 2 above, and thus claims 16-21 are each rejected for similar rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6-8, 12-13, 16-17, and 19-21 are concurrently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (US 2008/0039024: hereinafter “Ikeda”).
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Ikeda teaches a radio node and a method of operating a/the radio node (figs. 4-7: see the wireless radio transmitter of fig. 4 and/or fig. 7. Note that the method steps are implemented as functions of the cited hardware of the Ikeda reference), the radio node [comprising circuitry] (figs. 4, 6, and 7: see the circuitry of the radio node as shown by at least figure 4 and/or figure 6) being configured to (addressed below):
transmit signalling based on a perturbed constant amplitude decomposition of an input sequence of samples (figs. 4-7: see the constant amplitude/envelope OFDM signal generated and transmitted by the Tx circuitry of figs. 4 and/or 7. An example of is shown by figure 6 where the data OFDM subcarriers has the same/constant amplitude at the respective primary peaks. Which is/are generated use at least circuitry unit 101 (constant envelope signal generation section), which perturbs/changes/alters the inputs sequence of samples/signals from signal/samples groups Si and Sq. Also see [0042-0043] and equations 4-6, which discloses show values of Si and Sq are combined into value Sωa(t) and are then separated/decomposed into the two constant amplitude/envelope signals Sωa1(t) and Sωa2(t).
Additionally the concept of ‘samples’ is due to the fact that these signal processing stages occur before the Digital to Analog Conversion (a.k.a. DAC, a.k.a. D2A); similar to at least instant figure 2); and
perform the perturbed constant amplitude decomposition on samples of the input sequence (previously addressed and/or readily apparent) based at least in part on one or both of a phase change between samples of the input sequence and an amplitude of one or more of the samples (figs. 4-7: the amplitude difference and phase difference as taken into account as shown by at least figure 5 in regards to the I/Q values of input samples of Si and Sq in the generation of Sωa(t) and the two factorized/decomposed constant amplitude/envelope signals Sωa1(t) and Sωa2(t).
The remaining limitations were previously addressed and/or are readily apparent).
With regards to claims 3 and 16, Ikeda teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2 above.
Ikeda further teaches wherein the perturbed constant amplitude decomposition is based at least in part on perturbing samples of the input sequence (note that this limitation merely rewords the limitation stated in the parent independent claim(s) and so logically the instant limitations are previously addressed and/or are readily apparent).
With regards to claims 4 and 17, Ikeda teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2 above.
Ikeda further teaches wherein transmitting signalling (previously addressed) is based at least in part on OFDM or DFTS-OFDM (figs. 4-7: OFDM is replete in the Ikeda reference, e.g. see [0028]).
With regards to claims 6 and 19, Ikeda teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2 above.
Ikeda further teaches the perturbed constant amplitude decomposition (previously addressed) produces two signalling components with constant amplitudes (figs. 4-7: the two factorized/decomposed constant amplitude/envelope signals Sωa1(t) and Sωa2(t). The remaining limitations were previously addressed and/or are readily apparent).
With regards to claims 7 and 20, Ikeda teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2 above.
Ikeda further teaches wherein the input sequence of samples (previously addressed) is provided one or both based at least in part on and by an Inverse Fast Fourier Transformation (figs. 4-7: the IFFT unit 130 provides/output the previously addressed input sequence of samples to the constant amplitude/envelope generation section 101. The remaining limitations were previously addressed and/or are readily apparent).
With regards to claims 8 and 21, Ikeda teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2 above.
Ikeda further teaches wherein the perturbed constant amplitude decomposition (previously addressed) is performed on one or more input batches of samples (figs. 4-7: where the input ‘batch’ of samples includes at least two samples from Si and Sq. The remaining limitations were previously addressed and/or are readily apparent), each batch comprising a plurality of samples of the input sequence (figs. 4-7: where the input ‘batch’ of samples includes at least two samples from Si and Sq. The remaining limitations were previously addressed and/or are readily apparent).
With regards to claim 12, Ikeda teaches the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ikeda further teaches wherein the total phase difference between consecutive values of an input batch is one or both equal to and corresponds to the total phase difference of a resulting batch determined based at least in part on the perturbed constant amplitude decomposition (figs. 4-7: where the input ‘batch’ of samples includes at least two samples from Si and Sq. The total phase different of the I/Q samples (of each batch) when combined form the particular amplitude and phase of Sωa(t) (see fig. 5) which are then separated/decomposed into the two constant amplitude/envelope signals Sωa1(t) and Sωa2(t). Where the total phase different of Sωa1(t) and Sωa2(t) also equals/yield Sωa(t) when (re)combined (see figure 5). The remaining limitations were previously addressed and/or are readily apparent).
With regards to claim 13, Ikeda teaches the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ikeda further teaches wherein transmitting (previously addressed) comprises transmitting two signals per sample (figs. 4-7: where the input ‘batch’ of samples includes at least two samples from Si and Sq. The total phase different of the I/Q samples (of each batch) when combined form the particular amplitude and phase of Sωa(t) (see fig. 5) which are then separated/decomposed into the two constant amplitude/envelope signals Sωa1(t) and Sωa2(t). Where the phrase ‘two signals per sample’ is mapped two signals Sωa1(t) and Sωa2(t) generated from Sωa(t) (which occurs in the digital/sample domain). The remaining limitations were previously addressed and/or are readily apparent) based at least in part on the perturbed constant amplitude decomposition (previously addressed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2008/0039024: hereinafter “Ikeda”) as applied to claim 1 and/or claim 2 above, further in view of Sato et al. (US 20170156142: hereinafter “Sato”)
With regards to claim 14, Ikeda teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2 above, including causing processing circuitry to one or both of control and perform a method, the method comprising: transmitting signalling based on a perturbed constant amplitude decomposition of an input sequence of samples, the perturbed constant amplitude decomposition being performed on samples of the input sequence based at least in part on one or both of a phase change between samples of the input sequence and an amplitude of one or more of the samples (as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 and claim 2 above).
Where Ikeda is silent to explicitly disclosing ‘a computer storage medium storing a computer program having instructions causing processing circuitry to one or both of control and perform a/the method’ (emphasis added).
However, secondary reference Sato shows a wireless OFDM communication system (see figure 2 and 6 and [0081]), where [0004] and[0103] state (with emphasis added):
[0103] In the present exemplary embodiment, the center node 200 (for example, REC) can be easily implemented by a general-purpose processor (general-purpose server 204), as described above. In the present exemplary embodiment, the center node 200 (for example, REC) performs processing which can be efficiently performed by a general-purpose processor. On the other hand, the access point 300 (or a relay node described later) implemented as dedicated hardware performs wireless signal processing performed poorly (with poor processing efficiency) by the general-purpose server 204. In this manner, functions are shared between the center node 200 and the access point 300. Thus, the center node 200 (for example, REC) can be easily implemented by a general-purpose processor (general-purpose server 204). In addition, implementing functions by the software 210 on the general-purpose server 204 enables not only a reduction in cost but also improvements in scalability, software portability, and functional flexibility. Details will be described later.
[0004] A software-defined communication system typically includes different kinds of memories, including RAM (random access memory), flash memory, and ROM (read only memory). RAM is the most expensive kind of memory and has the fastest writing and reading access speeds. Flash memory is less expensive, but has much slower access speeds. ROM is the least expensive kind of memory and has fast read access speeds comparable to those of RAM, but new data cannot be written into a ROM. Constant value code and program code can be stored in a flash memory and can be directly accessed from the RAM by a DSP or other processor, but this technique reduces the amount of expensive RAM that is required. Alternatively, constant value code and program code can be initially stored in the flash memory, then copied into the RAM, and then accessed directly by the DSP or other processor. This technique provides higher operating speed but is more costly because a larger amount of expensive RAM is required.
Therefore, in view of the cited teachings of Sato above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ikeda (previously addressed) to be implemented on ‘a computer storage medium storing a computer program having instructions causing processing circuitry to one or both of control and perform the method/functions’ (as addressed by Sato) in order to yield the corresponding disclosed benefits of ‘reduction in cost, improvements in scalability, software portability, and/or functional flexibility’ (as compared with hardware per se implementation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9-11 are 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.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. Perez, telephone number (571)270-3231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10am to 6pm EST.
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, David C. Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/JAMES M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 10/31/2025