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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants remarks (pg. 6) that “Claims 10-16 have been withdrawn,” however, the statues of previously withdrawn claims 17-20 are unknown as its missing from the current filed claim listing. Applicants are reminded that in the claim listing, the status of every original claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). Applicants are advised to appropriately provide the claim statue of all original claims, including claims 17-20, in subsequent claim listing.
Applicant argue (REMARKS pg. 8, 9) that "the parallel-to-serial conversion circuit of PADOS et al. is just a data formatting operation that changes the temporal arrangement of digital symbols without performing any mathematical combination or addition of the underlying signal content…. The Patent Office's assertion that the parallel-to-serial conversion circuit "functions as a combiner for performing summation/addition" is unsupported by the PADOS disclosure and conflates two entirely different operations: data format conversion versus the claimed "adding together, via mathematical addition, each signal." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that PADOS fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "combining, via a combiner, the signals with linear frequency modulation to generate a first combined signal, wherein the combining the signals with linear frequency modulation includes adding together, via mathematical addition, each signal to generate the first combined signal," (emphasis added) as recited in amended Independent Claim 1.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. PADOS et al. teaches (Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0084]-[0085]) “The signal representation in Equation 7 is the combined output of IOCT and carrier frequency modulation blocks depicted in Figure 1.” As disclosed, Equation (7) performs summation (see Equation (7) -
∑
k
=
-
0
K
-
1
s
k
…
) that involves mathematical addition. Hence “the multiuser multicarrier-chirp-division-multiplexing ("MU-MCDM")” signal representation in Equation 7 and depicted in Fig. 3 or Fig. 4 involves combining or summation “via mathematical addition” in the data format conversion process performed by for example the parallel-to-serial conversion circuit or any circuit used to implement the summation operation of Equation 7. As depicted in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, a first combined signal, e.g. User 1 MCDM signal across Frequency (subbands) and Time (symbol), includes combining of “linear chirp signals” (“C” in MCDM) across Frequency and Time, which is similar to applicants Fig. 4. For instant, a symbol of duration “T” for USER 1, includes three linear chirp signal, each allocated in three Frequency subbands. For clarity, the Office asserts the PADOS’s “linear chirp signals” are eqaulivent to the claimed “linear frequency modulated signal.” As an evidentiary document, Applicants are directed to Galleani et al.’s disclosure (NPL titled “Local Signal to Nosie Ratio” Proceedings Volume 6313, Advanced Signal Processing Algorithms, Architectures, and Implementations XVI; 63130Q (2006)) which depicts, in Fig. 1, a “Spectrogram of a linear chirp signal”. PADOS et al. teaches (Para. [0073]) generating “a linear chirp signal with a frequency which changes linearly over time. The m- th chirp waveform is therefore represented as: [See equation (1)]…For positive chirp rate, i.e., µ > 0, the frequency increases with time and
ψ
m
(t) is an up-chirp signal, while for µ < 0,
ψ
m
(t) is a down-chirp signal (i.e., the frequency decreases with time)”. Hence, PADOS et al. additionally teaches the newly amended limitation of:
“wherein the first combined signal comprises a combined linear frequency modulated signal (Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0061]-[0062], [0073], [0085]: Equation 7 produces an output signal x(t) including “plurality of chirp modulated waveforms”/combined linear frequency modulated signal generated similarly as “a linear chirp” modulated signal/waveform of Equation 1) having simultaneous frequency content from all selected subbands (Fig. 1-4, Para. [0061], [0073], [0084]-[0085]: Equation 7 – “K is the total number of frequency subcarriers,” where , e.g. USER 1 includes the “plurality of chirp modulated waveforms”/combined linear frequency modulated signal having simultaneous frequency content (e.g. each chirp modulated waveform in each subband allocated to USER 1) in the selected K subbands).
Applicant further argue (REMARKS pg. 10) that “Applicant submits that Noe focuses an adder in the context of a frequency modulation control system for optical signals, not acoustic signals. In particular, the "mixer means 16" of Noe is specifically designed to superimpose control signals for frequency modulation correction in an optical transmitter system, which is not equivalent to "combining, via a combiner, the signals with linear frequency modulation to generate a first combined signal, wherein the combining the signals with linear frequency modulation includes adding together, via mathematical addition, each signal to generate the first combined signal," (emphasis added) as recited in amended Independent Claim 1.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Noe teaches (col. 6, line 38-43) “…an adder or subtractor means is provided for superimposing the output signal that is dependent on a deviation of the actual value from the rated value and the distorted derived signal...”. That is, superimposition is achieved by an adder performing the function of adding/summing/combining two or more signals. Then in view of PADOS et al.’s teaching that a combiner performs “summation/addition”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that that parallel-to-serial conversion circuit functions as a combiner for performing the summation/addition in “Equation 7 in PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al.’s invention, can comprise an adder as taught by Noe et al., for superimposing/combining the first serial/combined chirp waveform signals with the audible sound signal, since such implementation would be use of known technique (using an adder for superimposing two or more signals) to improve a similar device (parallel-to-serial conversion circuit functions as a combiner for performing the summation/addition) (KSR).
Applicant additionally argue (REMARKS pg. 10) that “Additionally, DEPREZ is silent regarding "combining, via a combiner, the signals with linear frequency modulation to generate a first combined signal, wherein the combining the signals with linear frequency modulation includes adding together, via mathematical addition, each signal to generate the first combined signal," (emphasis added) as recited in amended Independent Claim 1. Rather, DEPREZ merely discloses that an ultrasonic wave can be superimposed with audible signals. See e.g., DEPREZ et al., page 5, Lines 19-28.”
In response the Office asserts that such arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As the applicants concedes, DEPREZ “discloses that an ultrasonic wave can be superimposed with audible signals” as the recited claim language scope requires. That is, DEPREZ teaches (pg. 3, 15th paragraph) “The modulated wave 103 [a first combined signal] may be transmitted…superimposed on an audible sound signal…” to generate a second combined signal. That is the modulated wave 103 is combined/ superimposed with audible sound signal to generate a second combined signal.
Finaly, applicant a argue (REMARKS pg. 10) “Jasper teaches selecting initial phases to minimize peak-to-average power ratio. However, Applicant respectfully submits that Jasper discloses selecting pilot symbol phases to minimize peak-to-average power ratio for QAM symbols that have randomly varying peak power levels when combined, which is not equivalent to "wherein initial phases of the signals with linear frequency modulation are selected to minimize peak-to-average power ratio of the combination,"”
The Office respectfully disagrees. The recited claim limitation scope requires selecting phases of signals that when combined would minimize peak-to-average power ratio minimize peak-to-average power ratio. To this end, Jasper et al. teaches (Fig. 5A, col. 1, lines 10-15, claim 7) selecting phase angles for a plurality of pilot symbols (signals) for a plurality of subchannels to minimize a peak-to-average power ratio of a composite signal in a linear modulation communications system. In other word, selecting phase angles for a plurality of pilot symbols/signals that would minimize a peak-to-average power ratio when combined as a composite signal as the scope of the recited claim language requires.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe’s invention,, to include wherein initial phases of the signals with linear frequency modulation are selected to minimize peak-to-average power ratio of the combined signals, as taught by JASPER, where doing so would (JASPER; column 2, lines 20-25) provide the advantages of minimizing the peak-to average amplitude power to simplify and reduce amplifier cost).
The Office maintain that all the argued and newly amended limitation are taught by the combination of PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe and/or still further in Jasper as addressed in the 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.
Claim 1, 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PADOS et al. (WO 2020069530 A1 previously cited) in view of DEPREZ et al. (WO 2015159024 A1, citations from attached Machine English translation previously cited/provided) further in view of Noe (US 5347529 A previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, PADOS et al. discloses;
A method of transmitting data over an acoustic channel (Fig. 26, Para. [0003]-[0004], [0060]: a method…for high data-rate acoustic and radio frequency communication”… “methods…that maximize data rate over acoustic and radio frequency (“RF”) channels”), comprising:
dividing an operating frequency band of the acoustic channel into a plurality of adjacent non-overlapping subbands of an equal bandwidth (Para. [0037], [0060], [0090], [0098]-[0099]: dividing an acoustic frequency band into adjacent nonoverlapping subcarrier frequencies (subbands) that are evenly divided across a total number of subcarriers corresponding to a channel bandwidth);
selecting a set of active subbands based on a data symbol to be transmitted (Fig. 3, 25, Para. [0036]-[[0039], [0060]-[0061]: selecting/allocating at least three active subcarriers/subbands, by “Subcarrier allocation” (Fig. 25), based on data input of at least a data symbol among “a plurality of input [data] symbols” modulated by using at least one of “binary phase shift keying (“BPSK”) modulation, quadrature phase shift keying (“QPSK”) modulation, or quadrature amplitude modulation (“QAM”), for example, QAM with 32 constellations (“32-QAM”)”, at “Symbol Mapping 20” (Fig. 25), to be transmitted by at least one User assigned/allocated with the selected/allocated active subcarriers, e.g. “subcarriers 1, 2, and 3 are allocated to User 1”. In other words, at least a set of active “subcarriers 1, 2, and 3” are selected/allocated based on at least a data symbol, modulated by BPSK, QPSK or QAM, to be transmitted by User 1), wherein the set of active subbands include a fixed subset the plurality of adjacent non-overlapping (Fig. 3, 25, Para. [0038]: set of active includes a fixed number, e.g. three, “subcarriers 1, 2, and 3” that “ are allocated to User 1”. In other words, a fixed number of subcarriers/subbands, e.g. “frequency subcarriers 1, 2, and 3 are allocated to User 1” based on at least a data symbol, modulated by BPSK, QPSK or QAM” for the data symbol transmission making “frequency subcarriers 1, 2, and 3” active subcarriers on which data symbol is transmitted);
generating a signal with linear frequency modulation in each of the selected set of active subbands (Para. [0061],[0073]: generating “a linear chirp” modulated signal/waveform, e.g. Equation 1, (signal with linear frequency modulation) that has a frequency that changes linearly over time for the selected set of active subcarriers for e.g. User 1);
combining, via a combiner (Fig. 1, Para. [0085]: parallel-to-serial conversion circuit functions as a combiner for performing the function of the summation/addition in “Equation 7”), the signals with linear frequency modulation to generate a first combined signal (Para. [0061]-[0062]: combining the chirp waveforms into a serial signal [a first combined signal] using a parallel-to-serial conversion circuit), wherein the combining the signals with linear frequency modulation includes adding together, via mathematical addition (Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0084]-[0085]: Equation (7) performs summation or mathematical addition (see Equation (7) -
∑
k
=
-
0
K
-
1
…
), each signal to generate the first combined signal (Fig. 1, Para. [0085]: transmitting the serial signal by way of an acoustic transducer as “an acoustic frequency signal”; “Equation 7 is the combined output of IOCT and carrier frequency modulation blocks depicted in Figure 1” where the combining requires summing/adding the chirp waveforms (s[k])) , wherein the first combined signal comprises a combined linear frequency modulated signal (Fig. 1, 2, Para. [0061]-[0062], [0073], [0085]: Equation 7 produces an output signal x(t) including “plurality of chirp modulated waveforms”/combined linear frequency modulated signal generated similarly as “a linear chirp” modulated signal/waveform of Equation 1) having simultaneous frequency content from all selected subbands (Fig. 1-4, Para. [0061], [0073], [0084]-[0085]: Equation 7 – “K is the total number of frequency subcarriers,” where , e.g. USER 1 includes aal the “plurality of chirp modulated waveforms”/combined linear frequency modulated signal having simultaneous frequency content (e.g. each chirp modulated waveform/linear chirp signal in each subband allocated to USER 1) in the selected K subbands)… and
transmitting …combined signal to the acoustic channel through an acoustic system (Fig. 1, Para. [0064]-[0065], [0085]: transmitting the serial signal by way of an acoustic transducer as “an acoustic frequency signal”; “Equation 7 is the combined output of IOCT and carrier frequency modulation blocks depicted in Figure 1”), wherein slopes of linear frequency modulation for the signals with linear frequency modulation are equal (Para. [0073], [0106]: the frequency changes linearly over time for each waveform, where a chirp rate (slope) for all waveforms is equal).
Although PADOS et al. discloses generating a first combined signal as taught above, they do not teach the:
combining…the first combined signal with an audible signal to generate a second combined signal; and
transmitting the second combined signal to the acoustic channel through an acoustic system, wherein slopes of linear frequency modulation for the signals with linear frequency modulation are equal (Para. [0073], [0106]: the frequency changes linearly over time for each waveform, where a chirp rate (slope) for all waveforms is equal).
On the other hand, DEPREZ et al. teaches:
combining a combined signal with an audible signal (pg. 3, 15th paragraph: “The modulated wave 103 [a first combined signal] may be transmitted…superimposed on an audible sound signal…” to generate a second combined signal. That is the modulated wave 103 is combined/ superimposed with audible sound signal to generate a second combined signal); and
transmitting the second combined signal[[s]] to the acoustic channel through an acoustic system (Fig. 1: the second combined signal is transmitted to the acoustic channel through an acoustic system/loudspeaker 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with the first serial/combined signal and transmit through the acoustic transducer in PADOS et al., an audible sound signal to generate a second combined signal and transmitting it to the acoustic channel through an acoustic system/acoustic transducer (speaker/loudspeaker 102) as taught by DEPREZ et al., where doing so would (DEPREZ et al., pg. 2, 3rd paragraph ) improve “the resistance of the signal to the disturbances.”
PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. discloses (DEPREZ et al.) superimposing modulated wave 103 on an audible sound signal, however, they do not teach that the superimposing is accomplished by:
“combiner.”
On the other hand, Noe et al. teaches (col. 6, line 38-43) “…an adder or subtractor means is provided for superimposing the output signal that is dependent on a deviation of the actual value from the rated value and the distorted derived signal...”. That is, superimposition is achieved by an adder performing the function of adding/summing/combining two or more signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that that parallel-to-serial conversion circuit functions as a combiner for performing the summation/addition in “Equation 7 in PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al.’s invention, can comprise an adder as taught by Noe et al., for superimposing/combining the first combined chirp wave signal with the audible sound signal, since such implementation would be use of known technique (using an adder for superimposing two or more signals) to improve a similar device (parallel-to-serial conversion circuit functions as a combiner for performing the summation/addition) (KSR).
Regarding Claim 2, PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe discloses all as applied to claim 1, where PADOS et al. further teaches;
wherein the dividing operating frequency band into subbands further comprises estimation of a range of frequency offsets in the acoustic channel (Para. [0010], [0072]-[0073], [0090]-[0091]: dividing the bandwidth into the subcarriers includes estimating channel parameters, which includes an estimation of frequency selective fading in certain frequency bands (frequency offsets)).
Regarding Claim 5, PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe discloses all as applied to claim 1, where PADOS et al. further teaches;
wherein the fixed set of the plurality of adjacent non-overlapping subbands is selected for a synchronization symbol (Para. [0099]: a uniform number of pilot carriers are assigned to reference/training symbols (synchronization symbol)).
Regarding Claim 7, PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe discloses all as applied to claim 1, where PADOS et al. further teaches;
wherein amplitudes of the signals with linear frequency modulation are selected to compensate for frequency response of the acoustic system (Para. [0046]: an amplifier increases the amplitude of signals to be transmitted at certain frequencies to be transmitted by the acoustic transducer).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PADOS et al. (WO 2020069530 A1 previously cited) in view of DEPREZ et al. (WO 2015159024 A1, citations from attached Machine English translation previously cited/provided) further in view of Noe (US 5347529 A previously cited) yet further in view of KIM et al. (US 2014/0064402 A1 previously cited).
Regarding Claim 6, PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe discloses all as applied to claim 1 above, however they do not teach:
wherein the slope of linear frequency modulation for the signals with linear frequency modulation is controlled by the symbol index.
On the other hand, KIM et al. teaches:
wherein the slope of linear frequency modulation for the signals with linear frequency modulation is controlled by the symbol index (Para. [0059], [0062]-[0063]: a modulation index for a symbol (Para. [0059]: generated based on PSK modulation scheme) controls a slope of a linear component (e.g. Para. [0062]; [0063]: “a slope 62” – “a slope of an absolute value for the ACF entails unique linear component”). That is, a slope of a linear component is determined/controlled based on a modulation index for a symbol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe’s invention, to include wherein the slope of linear frequency modulation for the signals with linear frequency modulation is controlled by a symbol index, as taught by KIM et al. where doing so would (Para. [0074]) “enhances a recognition rate in various signal environments, and moreover, the enhanced result can be applied to various transmission recognition fields later”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PADOS et al. (WO 2020069530 A1 previously cited) in view of DEPREZ et al. (WO 2015159024 A1, citations from attached Machine English translation previously cited/provided) further in view of Noe (US 5347529 A previously cited) yet further in view of Jasper et al. (US 5381449 A previously cited).
Regarding Claim 8, PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe discloses all as applied to claim 1 above, however they do not teach:
wherein initial phases of the signals with linear frequency modulation are selected to minimize peak-to-average power ratio of the combination.
On the other hand, Jasper et al. teaches:
wherein initial phases of the signals with linear frequency modulation are selected to minimize peak-to-average power ratio of the combination (Fig. 5A, col. 1, lines 10-15, claim 7: phase angles for a plurality of pilot symbols for a plurality of subchannels are selected to minimize a peak-to-average power ratio of a composite signal in a linear modulation communications system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of PADOS et al. in view of DEPREZ et al. further in view of Noe’s invention,, to include wherein initial phases of the signals with linear frequency modulation are selected to minimize peak-to-average power ratio of the combined signals, as taught by JASPER, where doing so would (JASPER; column 2, lines 20-25) provide the advantages of minimizing the peak-to average amplitude power to simplify and reduce amplifier cost).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 AMNEET SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2414. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Sam K. Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
/AMNEET SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2633
/SAM K AHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633