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 (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2023 and 02/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “means for segmenting”, “means for mapping”, “means for transmitting”, “means for encoding”, “means for multiplexing,” and “means for demapping” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the term “means for” coupled with functional language “segmenting”, “mapping”, “transmitting”, “encoding”, “multiplexing,” and “demapping” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic term “means for” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 53 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows lack of sufficient and adequate structure (or material or algorithm) for performing the above functions.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 53 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 53 is rejected under 112(b) because the specification does not disclose adequate and sufficient structure (or material or acts or algorithm) for performing the recited functions (invoking the 112, sixth paragraph) in the claim, resulting in no definite boundaries.
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.
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, 5, 7, 9, 27, 31, 33, 35, 53, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. “Reliable Transmission with Low Complexity Reed-Solomon Block Turbo Codes” in view of He et al. (US 20220077875).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device, comprising: a processor; and memory coupled with the processor (RS encoder/decoder with symbol processing. Memory size is proportional to the size of data block; page 5, Col. 10),
the memory storing instructions for the processor to cause the wireless device to: segment a bit sequence of information bits into a plurality of bit groups (The first category is constructed from (k1 × k2) Q-ary (Q = 2q) information symbols, which means (k1 × k2 × q) data bits. The q binary elements corresponding to a Q-ary symbol are at the intersection of a row and column. The second category uses (k1 × k2 × q2) information bits. Each bit in this case belongs to different Q-ary symbols in row and column coding; page2, Col. 3);
map each bit group of the plurality of bit groups to a respective symbol to generate a plurality of ordered information symbols (Each bit in this case belongs to different Q-ary symbols in row and column coding. Serial concatenation is realized by coding Q-ary symbols along the rows and columns successively. The constructed RS product codes based on two different concatenation approaches are shown in Fig. 1. Using the galois field generator polynomial [7], the above RS product codes can be represented by a matrix [E] after the Q-ary to binary conversion; page2, Col. 3);
encode the plurality of ordered information symbols to generate a plurality of codewords (The code rate of P is R = R1 × R2 where Ri (i = 1, 2) is the code rate of its component code. It is shown [6] that all n1 rows of the product code are code words of e2 just as all n2 columns are code words of e1; Fig. 1, page2, Col. 3);
demap each codeword of the plurality of codewords to generate a plurality of sequences; and transmit a signal generated based at least in part on the sequences (Transmission with QPSK modulation over AWGN channel can be regarded as the superposition of two independent binary Phase-Shift Keying (BPSK) applied respectively to the inphase and orthogonal carrier over the same channel. Each bit of the RS product code is associated with one binary value according to the mapping rule ( 0 → -1, 1 → +1 ). At the channel output, the bit level Log Likelihood Ratio (LLR) is computed and fed to the turbo decoder; page 2, Cols. 3-4).
Zhou does not expressly disclose multiplex the plurality of sequences to generate a pseudorandom sequence; and transmit a signal generated based on the pseudorandom sequence.
In an analogous art, He discloses multiplex the plurality of sequences to generate a pseudorandom sequence; and transmit a signal generated based on the pseudorandom sequence (The PRBS 31 is a type of test data for generating a pseudo-random sequence as a system input. The original data is encoded at an encoder side based on RS (544, 514). Then, a result of interleaving four RS codewords is used as an example, and a first data stream obtained after interleaving is transmitted through a lane 1 in a bit multiplexing manner to a BCH encoder for BCH encoding, to obtain a second data stream. Then, the second data stream is transmitted to a decoder side through a lane 2; [0285]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by He into the system of Zhou in order to reduce the time delay associated with FEC code pattern conversion (He; [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhou and He particularly Zhou discloses wherein the instructions to encode the plurality of ordered information symbols are for the processor to cause the wireless device to: encode the plurality of ordered information symbols using a codebook associated with an error detection code or an error correction code (When the single-error correcting RS codes are used, this parameter is 3 and thus the number of least reliable position required equals to 1. We can see that using single error correcting RS component codes can keep SISO decoder at a very low complexity level; page 3, Col. 5); and
generate a codeword comprising information symbols of the plurality of ordered information symbols and a plurality of check symbols, wherein the plurality of check symbols include cyclic redundancy check symbols of the error detection code, parity check symbols of the error correction code, or a combination thereof (four different single error-correcting classical RS codes over GF(8), GF(16), GF(32), GF(64) are considered. We have considered product codes RS(7, 5)2, RS(15, 13)2, RS(31, 29)2 and RS(63, 61)2 based on both Q-ary symbol concatenation and bit concatenation. These codes are transmitted with QPSK modulation over AWGN channel; page 4, Col. 7).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhou and He particularly Zhou discloses wherein the codeword is generated using an error detection coding algorithm that is a Reed-Solomon code or a Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem code (use single error correcting RS codes as component codes in the construction of product codes. The so constructed RS-BTC can achieve reliable transmission at less than 1 dB from Shannon limit using QPSK over AWGN channel with very low complexity turbo decoder; page 1, Col. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhou and He particularly He discloses process a plurality of subsets of information bits, each subset of information bits corresponding to an information symbol, the processing including multiplexing, interleaving, or both the plurality of subsets of information bits resulting in the plurality of ordered information symbols (the first data stream includes first FEC code streams on k lanes, the first data stream may be interleaved by an interleaver to form fourth data streams on m lanes, and then the fourth data streams on the m lanes may be multiplexed by a multiplexer such as a bit multiplexer or a symbol multiplexer, to form third data streams on the n lanes. The third data stream on each lane is then encoded into one second FEC code stream, and n FEC code streams form the second data stream; [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by He into the system of Zhou in order to reduce the time delay associated with FEC code pattern conversion (He; [0007]).
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 53, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 55, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. “Reliable Transmission with Low Complexity Reed-Solomon Block Turbo Codes” in view of He et al. (US 20220077875), and in view of Sorrentino et al. (US 20130259098).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhou and He does not expressly disclose receive control signaling that indicates that the wireless device is to use single-stage randomization or multi-stage randomization, wherein the pseudorandom sequence is generated based at least in part on multi-stage randomization.
In an analogous art, Sorrentino discloses receive control signaling that indicates that the wireless device is to use single-stage randomization or multi-stage randomization, wherein the pseudorandom sequence is generated based at least in part on multi-stage randomization (The one or more processing circuits 58 are configured in this regard to determine a sequence 26-2 from a subset 28-2 of possible initialization sequences for the pseudo-random sequence generator of the device 16-2. The one or more processing circuits 58 are configured to then encode the determined sequence 26-2 as a single parameter z. Different values for this single parameter z represent different possible initialization sequences within the subset 28-2. Finally, the one or more processing circuits 58 are configured to initialize the pseudo-random sequence generator of the wireless device 16-2 with the determined sequence 26-2 by transmitting the single parameter z to the wireless device 16-2; [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Sorrentino into the system of Zhou and He in order to reduce the control signaling for initializing pseudo-random sequence generators on which wireless devices base generation of uplink reference signals (Sorrentino; [0017]).
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. “Reliable Transmission with Low Complexity Reed-Solomon Block Turbo Codes” in view of He et al. (US 20220077875), and in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220060360).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhou and He does not expressly disclose receive control signaling that indicates that the wireless device is to use an orthogonal cover code to generate a plurality of orthogonal sequences based at least in part on the pseudorandom sequence, wherein the signal is generated based at least in part on the orthogonal cover code.
In an analogous art, Zhang discloses receive control signaling that indicates that the wireless device is to use an orthogonal cover code to generate a plurality of orthogonal sequences based at least in part on the pseudorandom sequence, wherein the signal is generated based at least in part on the orthogonal cover code (when generating the reference signal sequences based on the reference signal generation sequences, the device may use a corresponding orthogonal parameter, to ensure orthogonality/quasi-orthogonality between reference signals of different devices. For example, when a used reference signal generation sequence is a ZC sequence, the orthogonal parameter is a cyclic shift; or when a used reference signal generation sequence is a pseudo-random sequence, the orthogonal parameter is an orthogonal cover code; [0235]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Zhang into the system of Zhou and He in order to improve multiplexing efficiency of a reference signal resource (Zhang; [0093]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhou and He does not expressly disclose receive control signaling that indicates a configuration for generating the pseudorandom sequence, wherein pseudorandom sequence is generated based at least in part on the configuration.
In an analogous art, Zhang discloses receive control signaling that indicates a configuration for generating the pseudorandom sequence, wherein pseudorandom sequence is generated based at least in part on the configuration (For example, when a used reference signal generation sequence is a ZC sequence, the orthogonal parameter is a cyclic shift; or when a used reference signal generation sequence is a pseudo-random sequence, the orthogonal parameter is an orthogonal cover code. The used orthogonal parameter may be determined by the device based on a first parameter set. Parameters in the first parameter set include one or more of a user equipment-specific parameter, a time domain-specific parameter, a cell-specific parameter, a network side device-specific parameter, a frequency domain-specific parameter, and a network side configuration parameter; [0235]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Zhang into the system of Zhou and He in order to improve multiplexing efficiency of a reference signal resource (Zhang; [0093]).
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. “Reliable Transmission with Low Complexity Reed-Solomon Block Turbo Codes” in view of He et al. (US 20220077875), and in view of Atanassov et al. (US 20130315501).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhou and He does not expressly disclose wherein codewords in the codebook have a defined separation distance for a given code rate or a given codebook size.
In an analogous art, Atanassov discloses wherein codewords in the codebook have a defined separation distance for a given code rate or a given codebook size (A codebook primitive may include a plurality of spatially-coded and unique codewords within an n1 by n2 symbol structure. This codebook primitive (e.g., n1 by n2 symbol structure) may be repeated multiple times in one or more directions of the code mask. Repeating the codebook primitive permits reducing the codebook size which is desirable since that it reduces the number of comparisons that are needed to identify a particular codeword match. FIG. 30 illustrates how codeword separation dictates a codebook primitive reuse distance. The maximum disparity (e.g., shift of codeword) may be determined by the operating regime (e.g., nearest range to furthest range); [0135-0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Atanassov into the system of Zhou and He in order to allow correcting for distortions of the code layer, thus achieving correct identification of codewords by a receiver (Atanassov; [0052]).
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 6.
Claim(s) 8, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. “Reliable Transmission with Low Complexity Reed-Solomon Block Turbo Codes” in view of He et al. (US 20220077875), and in view of Laroia et al. (US 20060203713).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zhou and He does not expressly disclose zero-pad each subset of information bits of a plurality of subsets of information bits, each subset of information bits correspond to an information symbol defined on a finite field, wherein the zero-padding results in the bit sequence of information bits.
In an analogous art, Laroia discloses zero-pad each subset of information bits of a plurality of subsets of information bits, each subset of information bits correspond to an information symbol defined on a finite field, wherein the zero-padding results in the bit sequence of information bits (some of the available information bit locations of the segment would not be required and would be padded, e.g., with zeros. The controllable encoder 246 groups the coded bit stream into subsets of coded bits, each subset of bits to be communicated in a sub-segment, and forwards the coded bits to the controllable QPSK modulator module 248. In some embodiments, some of the coded bits of a sub-segment correspond to a symbol energy level pattern for the sub-segment and other coded bits of a sub-segment correspond to values conveyed on modulation symbols which are generated. The modulation scheme indicator (MSI) indicates which one of a plurality of zero symbol rate QPSK modulation schemes to be used to modulate coded bits; [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Laroia into the system of Zhou and He in order to efficiently use air link resources for downlink traffic channel signaling in wireless communication systems supporting several users with a wide range of varying resource needs (Laroia; [0005]).
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 8.
Claim(s) 10-12, 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. “Reliable Transmission with Low Complexity Reed-Solomon Block Turbo Codes” in view of He et al. (US 20220077875), and in view of Benjamin (US 20220365714).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhou and He does not expressly disclose initialize a second pseudorandom sequence generator based at least in part on the pseudorandom sequence, wherein elements of the pseudorandom sequence are binary or nonbinary.
In an analogous art, Benjamin discloses initialize a second pseudorandom sequence generator based at least in part on the pseudorandom sequence, wherein elements of the pseudorandom sequence are binary or nonbinary (FIG. 2 illustrates an example pseudo-random binary sequence generator component 213 in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the pseudo-random binary sequence generator component 213 can include a pseudo-random binary sequence (PRBS) generator 278 and a channelization circuitry 270. The PRBS generator 278 can include a linear feedback shift register (LFSR) having a particular feedback configuration. In some embodiments, the pseudo-random binary sequence generator 278 is an n-bit parallel pseudo-random binary sequence generator. In some embodiments, the pseudo-random binary sequence 278 can be a single generator as opposed to parallel instantiations of multiple single-bit generators; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Benjamin into the system of Zhou and He in order to perform channelization of the pseudo-random binary sequence generator (PBSG) to improve performance of the PBSG (Benjamin; [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhou, Benjamin, and He, particularly Benjamin discloses the second pseudorandom sequence generator comprises one or more linear-feedback shift registers (The PRBS generator 278 can include a linear feedback shift register; [0027]); and
operation of the one or more linear-feedback shift registers is defined on a binary finite field or a non-binary finite field (n-bit parallel pseudo-random binary sequence generator 278 and the channelization circuitry 270 can be controlled via external signals, such as from a processor (e.g., processor 117 in FIG. 1); [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Benjamin into the system of Zhou and He in order to perform channelization of the pseudo-random binary sequence generator (PBSG) to improve performance of the PBSG (Benjamin; [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhou, Benjamin, and He, particularly Benjamin discloses wherein the instructions to initialize the second pseudorandom sequence generator are for the processor to cause the wireless device to: use the pseudorandom sequence that is coded and comprises a plurality of information symbols and check symbols as input into the initialized second pseudorandom sequence generator (FIG. 3B illustrates an example channel 361 of a pseudo-random binary sequence generator in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the pseudo-random binary sequence generator can use the single channel 368 to produce a single channel n-bit output pattern by sending the single channel 368 through a channelization circuitry and to a multiplexor. That is, based on the desired output, a single channel 368 of the channel 361 can be selected and produce an output using a single channel channelization circuitry; [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Benjamin into the system of Zhou and He in order to perform channelization of the pseudo-random binary sequence generator (PBSG) to improve performance of the PBSG (Benjamin; [0010]).
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 10.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 12.
Claim(s) 13-15, 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. “Reliable Transmission with Low Complexity Reed-Solomon Block Turbo Codes” in view of He et al. (US 20220077875), and in view of Li et al. (US 20090219181).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zhou and He does not expressly disclose generate a plurality of bit subsets based at least in part on a plurality of ordered information bits; generate an orthogonal cover code based at least in part on a first subset of the plurality of bit subsets; apply the orthogonal cover code to the pseudorandom sequence to generate a plurality of orthogonal or pseudo-orthogonal random sequences; and generate a reference signal based at least in part on the plurality of orthogonal or pseudo-orthogonal random sequences.
In an analogous art, Li discloses generate a plurality of bit subsets based at least in part on a plurality of ordered information bits (Fig. 12, transmitter side divides k-bit information for transmission into an m-bit part and an n-bit part; [0063]);
generate an orthogonal cover code based at least in part on a first subset of the plurality of bit subsets (maps the n-bit part into an orthogonal code, e.g., a Walsh code; [0063]);
apply the orthogonal cover code to the pseudorandom sequence to generate a plurality of orthogonal or pseudo-orthogonal random sequences (selects corresponding scrambling mode from 2.sup.m scrambling modes in accordance with the m-bit part, where different m-bit information corresponds to different scrambling modes. transmitter side scrambles and then transmits the orthogonal code into which the n-bit part is mapped according to the selected scrambling mode; [0063]); and
generate a reference signal based at least in part on the plurality of orthogonal or pseudo-orthogonal random sequences (the receiver side derives a channel parameter H from a pilot signal, processes values of the 2.sup.m*2.sup.n correlation peaks by the conjugation H* of the channel parameter H, and selects the n-bit information corresponding to the maximum correlation peak as an output, and the n-bit information is the optimum sequence; [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Li into the system of Zhou and He in order enable transmission of large amount of information in a fixed resource block (Li; [0083]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Zhou, Li, and He, particularly Li discloses multiplex the plurality of orthogonal or pseudo-orthogonal random sequences to generate a multiplexed signal, wherein the reference signal is generated based at least in part on the multiplexed plurality of orthogonal or pseudo-orthogonal random sequences (after 5-bit information is mapped into a 32-bit Walsh code, a 1024-bit sequence can be obtained by repetition, as illustrated in FIG. 5. Thereafter, the 1024-bit sequence is scrambled differently for different channels to distinguish one channel from another. The Walsh codes scrambled for the different channels are combined additively into 1024 bits which are then scrambled with another scrambling code to distinguish different cells or sectors. The 1024 bits are divided into 8 sub-blocks and each sub-block contains 128 bits which are subject to 128-point Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to output 128 complex values, and the 1024 complex values are carried over consecutive 128 sub-carriers and 8 symbols in the OFDM system; [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Li into the system of Zhou and He in order enable transmission of large amount of information in a fixed resource block (Li; [0083]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhou, Li, and He, particularly Li discloses wherein the instructions to generate the orthogonal cover code are for the processor to cause the wireless device to: generate the orthogonal cover code using a closed-form formula comprising a Walsh-Hadamard code, a constant amplitude zero autocorrelation waveform sequence, a chirp sequence, or any combination thereof (The encoding module 2420 can be an orthogonal code mapping module, adapted to map the n-bit part into an orthogonal code, and output the mapped orthogonal code to the mapping module 2440. The orthogonal code may be a Walsh code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Li into the system of Zhou and He in order enable transmission of large amount of information in a fixed resource block (Li; [0083]).
Regarding claim 39, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 40, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 14.
Regarding claim 41, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18, 42-44 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 16, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, would comprise a combination of elements which is not taught by the prior art of record. The same remarks apply to claims 17-18, 42-44 mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al. (US 20200366409), “REDUCED OVERHEAD ERROR DETECTION CODE DESIGN FOR DECODING A CODEWORD.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OUSSAMA ROUDANI whose telephone number is (571)272-4727. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571) 272 7919. 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.
/OUSSAMA ROUDANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413