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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5-15-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submits that none of figs. 12-12c discloses “a header of a symbol of a first type is a low-index portion of an input”; the examiner’s position is that according
figs. 3 of the present invention the low-index portion is the header before the data portion and the low-index portion’s first preset index value is the starting position of the data portion and both can be seen in the above-mentioned figures.
As to the argument: “It would not be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to enable the terminal device and the network device to agree on "the predefined sequence".” The examiner’s position is that it would be more than obvious to use a predefined sequence, in order to use the transmitted information; otherwise, it will be unknown what is been transmitted nor how is been transmitted.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. Please see the new ground of rejection below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 18-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmsson 20200267651 in view of Lee 20120250801.
As to claim 1, Wilhelmsson discloses a method for data transmission [see abstract], comprising: switching from a sleep state to a working state [see fig. 6, step 650] (see par. 0128) in response to detecting that a header of a symbol of a first type (see par. 0211, 0234) is a predefined sequence [WUR predefined address] (see par. 0163, 0232-0233); wherein the header of the symbol of the first type is a low-index portion of an input by a value less than a predefined value [low-index= header before data] (see fig. 12-12c; par. 0163). Wilhelmsson fails to disclose an input of a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) module. In an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the header of the symbol of the first type is an index portion of an input of a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) module (see par. 0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use DFT and desired index values for the simple purpose of organizing the data as desired and maximize the finite wireless resources.
As to claim 3, Wilhelmsson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the header of the symbol of the first type contains a reference signal (RS), a pilot, or a preamble [header part is a preamble since it comes before the data] (see par. 0211).
As to claim 5, Wilhelmsson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the header of the symbol of the first type is longer than a header of a symbol other than the symbol of the first type (see fig. 12-12c; 0233, 0254).
As to claim 8, Wilhelmsson discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the header of the symbol of the first type is prior to a data portion of the symbol of the first type (see fig. 12; par. 0211).
As to claim 18, Wilhelmsson discloses a communication apparatus, comprising: a processor; a memory; and a user interface, wherein the processor, the memory, and the user interface are coupled with one another, the memory is configured to store computer programs, the computer programs comprise program instructions (see par. 0295, 0298) and the processor is configured to invoke the program instructions to: switch from a sleep state to a working state [see fig. 6, step 650] in response to detecting that a header of a symbol of a first type (see par. 0211, 0234 is a predefined sequence or signaling [particular WUS is a predefined signaling] (see par. 0163).
Regarding claims 19 and 23, are the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage of method claims 1 and 5. Therefore, claim 19 and 23 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
As to claim 21, Wilhelmsson discloses the communication apparatus of claim 18, wherein the header of the symbol of the first type contains a reference signal (RS), a pilot, or a preamble [header part is a preamble, comes before the data] (see par. 0211).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmsson in view of Lee and further in view of Bala 20190097859.
As to claims 9 and 11, Wilhelmsson fails to disclose wherein the header of the symbol of the first type is subsequent to a data portion of the symbol of the first type. In analogous art, Bala discloses wherein the header of the symbol of the first type is a high-index portion of an input of a DFT module, wherein the high-index portion of the input of the DFT module is a portion of the input of the DFT module indicated by an index with a value greater than a second predefined index value; wherein the “header” [tail] of the symbol of the first type is subsequent to a data portion of the symbol of the first type [the present application is calling the tail as a header with high-index] (see par. 0221). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use DFT and desired index values for the simple purpose of organizing the data as desired and maximize the finite wireless resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights