DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are amended.
Claim 16 is added.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 6-8), filed on 01/23/2025, with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because [FIG.18] label “1010” – “1080” should read as “1810” – “1810” respectively to align with specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9 and 16 recites the phrase “such that” in line 5, line 5 and line 4 respectively. Language that suggests or makes optional or intended use/result (i.e., such that) but does not require step to be performed or does not limit the scope of the claim to a particular structure or does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation(s). Such clauses may render parts of the claim(s) optional (see MPEP 2106 and 2111.04).
Claim 15 recites “the broadcast signal transmission apparatus” in the preamble. The limitations “a first receiver that does not support MIMO restores only the core layer signal” and “a second receiver that supports MIMO restores both the core layer signal and the enhanced layer signal based on the signaling information” recited respectively in line 4 and lines 5-6 do not further limit the broadcast signal transmission apparatus recited in the preamble. The limitations are not structures, functions or configurations performed by the broadcast signal transmission apparatus, instead the limitations are performed by a broadcast signal reception apparatus. Thus, the limitations directed to the functionality and configuration of another have no patentable weight as the limitations are not directed towards the broadcast signal transmission apparatus. It is suggested to amend the limitations not to further limiting to another.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
‘a signaling information generation unit configured to’ and ‘a broadcast signal generation unit’ in claim 9.
Regarding ‘a signaling information generation unit configured to’ and ‘a broadcast signal generation unit’ in claim 9, the corresponding structure can be found at [FIG.16]-[Fig.17] and specification PGPUB paragraph [0159], processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180167245 A1), hereinafter “Kim”, in view of Park et al. (US 20180351609 A1), hereinafter “Park”.
Per claim 1, 9 and 16:
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches ‘A broadcast signal transmission apparatus’ (Kim: [0002]: “an apparatus for transmitting broadcast signals”);
‘comprising:
a signaling information generation unit configured to generate signaling information’ (Kim: [FIG.2]: block 2020: “Physical Layer Signaling Generation”, “PLS1”, “PLS2”; signaling generation unit for generating a signaling information);
‘corresponding to a combined signal generated by using Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) and Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM) together, such that MIMO is performed prior to LDM combining’ (Kim: [0014]: “transmission/reception of broadcast signals using a MIMO system”; [0566]: “LDM setting, and SISO/MIMO of data symbols may be signaled in a preamble”; [0467]: “The PLS1 information may also be designated as Layer 1 (L1) static information or Layer 1 (L1) basic information, and the PLS2 information may also be designated as L1-dynamic information or L1 detail information”). However, Kim fails to expressly teach combine MIMO and LDM together such that MIMO is performed prior to LDM combining;
‘a broadcast signal generation unit configured to include the signaling information in a preamble of a broadcast signal’ (Kim: [FIG.1]: “TX Signal Output”. [0017]: “FIG. 1 illustrates a structure of an apparatus for transmitting broadcast signals”; [FIG.34]: “Preamble” includes “L1-static” and “L1-dynamic”);
‘transmit the broadcast signal to at least one receiver’ (Kim: [FIG.1]: “TX ant.1”, “TX Signal Output”; [FIG.9]: “Rx ant.1”, “Rx signal input”).
However, Park in the same field of endeavor teaches transmission scheme with combination of MIMO and LDM technology together (Park: [FIG.1]: “CL INPUT Stream”, “EL INPUT STREAM”; [0007]-[0008]: “In order to simultaneously support various multiple services, multiplexing, which is a procedure for combining multiple signals, is required. Among these multiple techniques, Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM) technology for combining signals in two layers by differently setting the powers of respective layer signals has been introduced … Therefore, there is urgently required the development of a new broadcast signal transceiving technique in which LDM is combined with MISO or MIMO”);
‘such that MIMO is performed prior to LDM combining’ (Park: [FIG.14]: “EL MIMO” is performed before block “1441” and “1442”, the LDM combining; [0241]: “FIG. 14 shows the case where plain MISO or MISO TDCFS is applied to the core layer and MIMO Spatial Multiplexing (SM) is applied to the enhanced layer. Here, a horizontal polarization antenna transmits an LDM signal of
PNG
media_image1.png
19
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(for plain MISO,
PNG
media_image2.png
17
42
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), and a vertical polarization antenna transmits an LDM signal of
PNG
media_image3.png
18
141
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”; [0245]: “Each of the combiners 1441 and 1442 generates a multiplexed signal by combining the core-layer signal with the corresponding enhanced-layer signal at different power levels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Kim in order to simultaneously support multiple services (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches ‘A broadcast signal reception apparatus’ (Kim: [0002]: “an apparatus for receiving broadcast signals”);
‘comprising:
one or more antennas configured to receive a broadcast signal’ (Kim: [FIG.9]: “Rx ant. 1”, “Rx ant. m”, “Rx signal input”; [0025]: “FIG. 9 illustrates a structure of an apparatus for receiving broadcast signals”);
‘in which signaling information corresponding to a combined signal generated by using Layered Division Multiplexing(LDM) and Multiple-Input Multiple-Output(MIMO) together, such that MIMO is performed prior to LDM combining’ (Kim: [0014]: “transmission/reception of broadcast signals using a MIMO system”; [0566]: “LDM setting, and SISO/MIMO of data symbols may be signaled in a preamble”; [0467]: “The PLS1 information may also be designated as Layer 1 (L1) static information or Layer 1 (L1) basic information, and the PLS2 information may also be designated as L1-dynamic information or L1 detail information”). However, Kim fails to expressly teach combine MIMO and LDM together such that MIMO is performed prior to LDM combining;
‘is included in a preamble of the broadcast signal’ (Kim: [FIG.34]: “Preamble” includes “L1-static” and “L1-dynamic”);
‘one or more reception chains configured to perform reception processing corresponding to the combined signal based on the signaling information’ (Kim: [FIG.9]: “Rx signal input”, “Frame Parsing”, “Physical Layer Signaling (PLS)”, “Output Processor”, “output streams”).
However, Park teaches combine MIMO and LDM technology together (Park: [FIG.1]: “CL INPUT Stream”, “EL INPUT STREAM”; [0007]-[0008]: “In order to simultaneously support various multiple services, multiplexing, which is a procedure for combining multiple signals, is required. Among these multiple techniques, Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM) technology for combining signals in two layers by differently setting the powers of respective layer signals has been introduced … Therefore, there is urgently required the development of a new broadcast signal transceiving technique in which LDM is combined with MISO or MIMO”);
‘such that MIMO is performed prior to LDM combining’ (Park: [FIG.14]: “EL MIMO” is performed before block “1441” and “1442”, the LDM combining; [0241]: “FIG. 14 shows the case where plain MISO or MISO TDCFS is applied to the core layer and MIMO Spatial Multiplexing (SM) is applied to the enhanced layer. Here, a horizontal polarization antenna transmits an LDM signal of
PNG
media_image1.png
19
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(for plain MISO,
PNG
media_image2.png
17
42
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), and a vertical polarization antenna transmits an LDM signal of
PNG
media_image3.png
18
141
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”; [0245]: “Each of the combiners 1441 and 1442 generates a multiplexed signal by combining the core-layer signal with the corresponding enhanced-layer signal at different power levels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Kim in order to simultaneously support multiple services (see reference quotes in element above).
Per claim 2 and 10:
Regarding claim 10, combination of Kim and Park teaches the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 9 (discussed above).
Kim teaches ‘the signaling information is included in basic transmission information (L1-BASIC SIGNAL) or detailed transmission information (L1- DETAIL SIGNAL) of the preamble of the broadcast signal’ (Kim: [FIG.34]: “Preamble” includes “L1-static” and “L1-dynamic”; [0467]: “The PLS1 information may also be designated as Layer 1 (L1) static information or Layer 1 (L1) basic information, and the PLS2 information may also be designated as L1-dynamic information or L1 detail information”).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the method implemented by the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Per claim 3 and 11:
Regarding claim 11, combination of Kim and Park teaches the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 10 (discussed above).
Kim teaches ‘first signaling information for a first subframe of the broadcast signal’ (Kim: [FIG.17]: “PLS1” for first subframe of broadcast signal frame);
‘second signaling information for a current subframe subsequent to the first subframe’ (Kim: [FIG.17]: “PLS2” for a current subframe subsequent to the first subframe).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the method implemented by the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Per claim 4 and 12:
Regarding claim 12, combination of Kim and Park teaches the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 11 (discussed above).
Kim teaches ‘the first signaling information is included in the L1-BASIC SIGNAL; and the second signaling information is included in the L1-DETAIL SIGNAL’ (Kim: [0467]: “The PLS1 information may also be designated as Layer 1 (L1) static information or Layer 1 (L1) basic information, and the PLS2 information may also be designated as L1-dynamic information or L1 detail information”).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the method implemented by the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Per claim 5 and 13:
Regarding claim 13, combination of Kim and Park teaches the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 9 (discussed above).
Kim does not expressly teach, but Park teaches ‘a core layer signal to which MIMO is applied and an enhanced layer signal to which MIMO is applied are combined using LDM’ (this is optional);
‘a core layer signal to which MIMO is not applied and an enhanced layer signal to which MIMO is applied are combined using LDM’ (Park: [0207]: “Plain MISO in CL+MIMO in EL”, MIMO is only applied to EL (enhanced layer) and not to CL (core layer)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Kim in order to simultaneously support multiple services (Park: [0008]: “In order to simultaneously support various multiple services, multiplexing, which is a procedure for combining multiple signals, is required. Among these multiple techniques, Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM) technology for combining signals in two layers by differently setting the powers of respective layer signals has been introduced … Therefore, there is urgently required the development of a new broadcast signal transceiving technique in which LDM is combined with MISO or MIMO”).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the method implemented by the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Per claim 6 and 14:
Regarding claim 14, combination of Kim and Park teaches the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 13 (discussed above).
Kim does not expressly teach, but Park teaches ‘a case in which the core layer signal is transmitted only through a first transmit antenna; a case in which the core layer signal is transmitted only through a second transmit antenna’ (these are optional);
‘a case in which the core layer signal is divided and transmitted through the first transmit antenna and the second transmit antenna’ (Park: [FIG.14]: “
PNG
media_image4.png
28
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” through “
PNG
media_image5.png
49
95
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”, “
PNG
media_image6.png
30
164
media_image6.png
Greyscale
” through “
PNG
media_image7.png
45
96
media_image7.png
Greyscale
”, core layer signal is divided and transmitted through both RFH and RFV antenna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Kim in order to simultaneously support multiple services (Park: [0008]: “In order to simultaneously support various multiple services, multiplexing, which is a procedure for combining multiple signals, is required. Among these multiple techniques, Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM) technology for combining signals in two layers by differently setting the powers of respective layer signals has been introduced … Therefore, there is urgently required the development of a new broadcast signal transceiving technique in which LDM is combined with MISO or MIMO”).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the method implemented by the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Per claim 7 and 15:
Regarding claim 15, combination of Kim and Park teaches the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 13 (discussed above).
Kim does not expressly teach, but Park teaches ‘wherein, when a core layer signal to which MIMO is not applied and an enhanced layer signal to which MIMO is applied are combined using LDM’ (Park: [0207]: “Plain MISO in CL+MIMO in EL”, MIMO is only applied to EL (enhanced layer) and not to CL (core layer));
‘a first receiver that does not support MIMO restores only the core layer signal’ (Park: [0006]: “A conventional topology composed of one transmitter and one receiver is referred to as a Single-Input Single-Output (SISO) scheme”, a receiver does not support MIMO; [FIG.18]: “INPUT RF”, “CL OUTPUT STREAM”; [0301]: “The mobile broadcast signal reception apparatus for MIMO, illustrated in FIG. 18, may restore only a core-layer signal without restoring an enhanced-layer signal even when an LDM-broadcast signal is transmitted”);
‘a second receiver that supports MIMO restores both the core layer signal and the enhanced layer signal based on the signaling information’ (Park: [0006]: “when at least two antennas are provided in a single receiver or when two receivers collaborate with each other (e.g. Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) antenna scheme), spatial multiplexing gain may be obtained”, a receiver supports MIMO; [FIG.16]: “INPUT RFH”, “INPUT RFV”, “CL OUTPUT STREAM”, “EL OUTPUT STREAM”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Kim in order to simultaneously support multiple services (Park: [0008]: “In order to simultaneously support various multiple services, multiplexing, which is a procedure for combining multiple signals, is required. Among these multiple techniques, Layered Division Multiplexing (LDM) technology for combining signals in two layers by differently setting the powers of respective layer signals has been introduced … Therefore, there is urgently required the development of a new broadcast signal transceiving technique in which LDM is combined with MISO or MIMO”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the method implemented by the broadcast signal transmission apparatus of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462