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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were submitted on 3/9/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Objections”, with respect to claims 1, 3, 6, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1, 3, 6, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103”, with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 8, and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 of claims 1-2, 5, 8, and 19-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 24 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: change “19” in line 1 to “23” since there is no k2 in claim 19 but in claim 23. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, and 19-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has amended this claim to have “mapping uplink (UL) demodulation reference signals (DMRSs) to an orthogonal frequency-division multiple access symbol (OFDM) symbol” which broadens the scope from having a single symbol to a symbol (term “a”/”an” can sometimes mean one or more/at least one which the specification does not exclude this possibility and so a symbol can mean one or more/at least one symbol). Applicant’s response state that support is found in ¶ 9-15, 53, 56-57, 61, 88, 91, 108, and 110 of the specification. Furthermore, in a telephonic call with Jae Choi (Reg. No. L0889) on 4/2/26, he indicated that support is found in fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs for fig. 3 for supporting one or more symbols. A review of these paragraphs and fig. 3 and the rest of the specification does not appear to provide support for this broadening claim amendment. MPEP 2163.05 recites in part “The failure to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, commonly arises when the claims are changed after filing to either broaden or narrow the breadth of the claim limitations”. Claims 2 and 4-12 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 1 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 19 recite similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 20-25 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 19 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 26 recite similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 27 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 26 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 has been amended from “the OFDM symbol” (referring to the single OFDM of claim 1) to “the second OFDM symbol” which refers to “a second OFDM symbol”. For similar reasoning above with respect to claim 1 which amends away from having single to one or more/at least one, claim 6 is rejected. Claim 7 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 6 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 23 recite similar limitations of claim 6 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
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(s) 1-2, 4-12, and 19-27 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how there is an orthogonal frequency-division multiple access symbol (OFDM) symbol”. Claims 2 and 4-12 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 1 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 19 recite similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 20-25 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 19 and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 26 recite similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 27 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 26 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, in view of this claim being directed to a baseband processor, which belongs to the statutory category of a machine, it is unclear how there isn’t a single part of the baseband processor. MPEP 2106.03(I) recites in part “A machine is a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.””. Claim 27 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 26 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights