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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
acquiring a received signal from a transmitting end, the received signal comprising multiple data symbols and multiple training symbol sets,
wherein each training symbol set comprises a first preset number of training symbols, with two adjacent training symbol sets of the multiple training symbol sets being spaced apart by a second preset number of data symbols of the multiple data symbols;
extracting the first preset number of training symbols from the received signal at intervals of the second preset number of data symbols to obtain a third preset number of training symbols as a candidate training sequence;
determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets; and
in response to a determination that the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets, determining synchronization information and/or channel estimation information of the received signal.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mathematics/Mental Processes”.. Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s).
In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “acquiring a received signal from a transmitting end, the received signal comprising multiple data symbols and multiple training symbol sets, wherein each training symbol set comprises a first preset number of training symbols, with two adjacent training symbol sets of the multiple training symbol sets being spaced apart by a second preset number of data symbols of the multiple data symbols” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
Independent claims 11 and 13 – 16 are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an Abstract idea. Claims 1 and 13- 16 recite the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “first acquisition circuitry,” “second acquisition circuitry,” “insertion circuitry,” “usage circuitry,” “transmitting circuitry,” “extraction circuitry,” “first determining circuitry,” and “second determining circuitry” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 2 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claim 6 recites “adjusting the received signal” but is recited so broadly as to constitute extra solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical limitation.
Claims 2-10 and 12 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albsmeier et al. (US 20120249140 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20170272279 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Albsmeier teaches:
acquiring a received signal from a transmitting end, the received signal comprising multiple data symbols and multiple training symbol sets (See para[0010], para[0014], and para[0024] – para[0027]: Furthermore regularly recurring signals appear which are inserted into the data stream for digital transmission of the data. For instance, constant training sequences are inserted into the digital data stream at the start of a frame for estimating the channel pulse response and for the receiver-side distortion.), and
determining synchronization information and/or channel estimation information of the received signal (See para[0025]: The local coil system uses alternating training sequences and correlation sequences for the channel estimation and frame start marker and/or frame start identifier.).
Albsmeier is silent as to the language of:
wherein each training symbol set comprises a first preset number of training symbols, with two adjacent training symbol sets of the multiple training symbol sets being spaced apart by a second preset number of data symbols of the multiple data symbols;
extracting the first preset number of training symbols from the received signal at intervals of the second preset number of data symbols to obtain a third preset number of training symbols as a candidate training sequence;
determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets; and
in response to a determination that the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets, determining synchronization information and/or channel estimation information of the received signal.
Nevertheless Zhao teaches:
wherein each training symbol set comprises a first preset number of training symbols (See Fig. 2 and para[0057] – para[0060]: As shown in FIG. 2, in this implementation, the training sequence includes N repeated sub-sequences, the sub-sequences being connected in an end-to-end manner to constitute the periodic training sequence, and each sub-sequence containing m data symbols.),
with two adjacent training symbol sets of the multiple training symbol sets being spaced apart by a second preset number of data symbols of the multiple data symbols (See Fig. 2 and para[0057] – para[0060]: The sub-sequences being connected in an end-to-end manner to constitute the periodic training sequence, and each sub-sequence containing m data symbols. In this implementation, data may be inserted between the sub-sequences. If data are inserted, the periodicity of the sub-sequences needs to be ensured, that is, the inserted data need also possessing periodicity.);
extracting the first preset number of training symbols from the received signal at intervals of the second preset number of data symbols to obtain a third preset number of training symbols as a candidate training sequence (See Fig. 15, para[0075] and para[0122]: After the position of the training sequence is obtained, m×N symbols may be extracted based on this position and taken as a training sequence section TS.sub.n.);
determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets (See para[0076] – para[0080]: The delay correlation processing unit 302 may perform autocorrelation operations of different delay amounts in parallel on the training sequence, the delay amounts being integral multiples of the period m of the periodic training sequence, respectively. By parallelly performing autocorrelation operations of different delay amounts on the training sequence by the delay correlation processing unit 302, the characteristic of multi-period repetition of the training sequence is utilized to a maximum extent.); and
in response to a determination that the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets, determining synchronization information and/or channel estimation information of the received signal (See para[0010]: Using information in the optical receiver, the apparatus for estimating a frequency offset first performs a synchronization extraction on a training sequence with periodicity, and then enhances an anti-noise characteristic of the training sequence by using differentiation characteristic of multi-period correlation sequences, thereby outstandingly improving the anti-noise characteristic of the frequency offset estimation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albsmeier wherein each training symbol set comprises a first preset number of training symbols, with two adjacent training symbol sets of the multiple training symbol sets being spaced apart by a second preset number of data symbols of the multiple data symbols; extracting the first preset number of training symbols from the received signal at intervals of the second preset number of data symbols to obtain a third preset number of training symbols as a candidate training sequence; determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets; and in response to a determination that the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets, determining synchronization information and/or channel estimation information of the received signal such as that of Zhao. Zhao teaches, “Using information in the optical receiver, the apparatus for estimating a frequency offset first performs a synchronization extraction on a training sequence with periodicity, and then enhances an anti-noise characteristic of the training sequence by using differentiation characteristic of multi-period correlation sequences, thereby outstandingly improving the anti-noise characteristic of the frequency offset estimation” (See para[0010]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Albsmeier, because using two training symbols sets spaced apart by a number of data symbol sets would have helped to improve the anti-noise characteristic of the frequence offset estimation, as recognized by Zhao.
Regarding Claim 6. Albsmeier teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1,
further comprising:
adjusting the received signal based upon the channel estimation information (See para[0053]: In an encoder 126, the bit rate of the MR signal is therefore adjusted from 120 MHz to the bit rate of the transmission channel of 160 MHz. To this end, spaces are to be inserted into the data stream transmitted by the digital transmission channel.).
Regarding Claim 9. Albsmeier is silent as to the language of:
The method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the third preset number is equal to, or equal to a multiple of, a number of training symbols in the multiple training symbol sets.
Nevertheless Zhao teaches:
wherein the third preset number is equal to, or equal to a multiple of, a number of training symbols in the multiple training symbol sets (See para[0076]: the delay amounts being integral multiples of the period m of the periodic training sequence, respectively. As shown in FIG. 3, the delay correlation processing unit 302 may perform delay autocorrelations of one period, two periods, . . . , k periods on the training sequence, respectively.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albsmeier wherein the third preset number is equal to, or equal to a multiple of, a number of training symbols in the multiple training symbol sets such as that of Zhao. Zhao teaches, “Using information in the optical receiver, the apparatus for estimating a frequency offset first performs a synchronization extraction on a training sequence with periodicity, and then enhances an anti-noise characteristic of the training sequence by using differentiation characteristic of multi-period correlation sequences, thereby outstandingly improving the anti-noise characteristic of the frequency offset estimation” (See para[0010]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Albsmeier, because using two training symbols sets spaced apart by a number of data symbol sets would have helped to improve the anti-noise characteristic of the frequence offset estimation, as recognized by Zhao.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albsmeier et al. (US 20120249140 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20170272279 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernhard et al. (US 20160006560 A1).
Regarding Claim 2. Albsmeier is silent as to the language of:
The method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets comprises:
acquiring an ideal training sequence, which is associated with a training sequence corresponding to the multiple training symbol sets at the transmitting end; and
determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets based upon the candidate training sequence and the ideal training sequence.
Nevertheless Bernhard teaches:
acquiring an ideal training sequence, which is associated with a training sequence corresponding to the multiple training symbol sets at the transmitting end (See Fig. 1, para[0051]: For localizing the first and second reference sequences 112 and 114 in a data stream, or receive data stream, the receive data stream may be correlated with the known first and second reference sequences 112 and 114.); and
determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets based upon the candidate training sequence and the ideal training sequence (See para[0051] and para[0067] – para[0068]: the data receiver 150 may thus localize the first reference sequence 112 and the second reference sequence 114 in the receive data stream, and may determine, e.g. on the basis of a comparison between the received first and second reference sequences and the known first and second reference sequences 112 and 114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albsmeier by acquiring an ideal training sequence, which is associated with a training sequence corresponding to the multiple training symbol sets at the transmitting end; and determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets based upon the candidate training sequence and the ideal training sequence such as that of Bernhard. Bernhard teaches, “By correlating a receive data stream with the known training sequences, the data receiver may determine the temporal position of the known training sequences in the receive data stream” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Albsmeier, because using an ideal training sequence would have helped to determine the temporal position of a training sequence in a data stream, as recognized by Bernhard.
Regarding Claim 3. Albsmeier is silent as to the language of:
The method as claimed in claim 2,
wherein determining whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets based upon the candidate training sequence and the ideal training sequence comprises:
performing, on the candidate training sequence and the ideal training sequence, a cross-correlation operation to obtain a cross-correlation result;
determining whether a correlation peak is present in the cross-correlation result; and
in response to a determination that the correlation peak is present in the cross-correlation result, determining that the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets.
Nevertheless Bernhard teaches:
performing, on the candidate training sequence and the ideal training sequence, a cross-correlation operation to obtain a cross-correlation result (See para[0051]: For localizing the first and second reference sequences 112 and 114 in a data stream, or receive data stream, the receive data stream may be correlated with the known first and second reference sequences 112 and 114.);
determining whether a correlation peak is present in the cross-correlation result (See Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, and para[0051]: The amount of the correlation function comprises, at the location or temporal position, a correlation peak which is the higher, or the larger, the better the receive data stream matches the known first and second reference sequences 112 and 114.); and
in response to a determination that the correlation peak is present in the cross-correlation result, determining that the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets (See para[0051]: For localizing the first and second reference sequences 112 and 114 in a data stream, or receive data stream, the receive data stream may be correlated with the known first and second reference sequences 112 and 114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albsmeier by performing, on the candidate training sequence and the ideal training sequence, a cross-correlation operation to obtain a cross-correlation result; determining whether a correlation peak is present in the cross-correlation result; and in response to a determination that the correlation peak is present in the cross-correlation result, determining that the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets such as that of Bernhard. Bernhard teaches, “By correlating a receive data stream with the known training sequences, the data receiver may determine the temporal position of the known training sequences in the receive data stream” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Albsmeier, because using an ideal training sequence would have helped to determine the temporal position of a training sequence in a data stream, as recognized by Bernhard.
Regarding Claim 4. Albsmeier is silent as to the language of:
The method as claimed in claim 3,
wherein determining the synchronization information and/or the channel estimation information of the received signal comprises:
acquiring correlation information comprising position information of the correlation peak; and
determining synchronization information of the received signal based upon the position information of the correlation peak.
Nevertheless Bernhard teaches:
acquiring correlation information comprising position information of the correlation peak (See para[0051]: The amount of the correlation function comprises, at the location or temporal position, a correlation peak which is the higher, or the larger, the better the receive data stream matches the known first and second reference sequences 112 and 114.); and
determining synchronization information of the received signal based upon the position information of the correlation peak (See para[0003], para[0051], and para[0068]: For synchronization with the data packet 102, the data receiver 150 may thus localize the first reference sequence 112 and the second reference sequence 114 in the receive data stream, and may determine, e.g. on the basis of a comparison between the received first and second reference sequences and the known first and second reference sequences 112 and 114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albsmeier by acquiring correlation information comprising position information of the correlation peak; and determining synchronization information of the received signal based upon the position information of the correlation peak such as that of Bernhard. Bernhard teaches, “By correlating a receive data stream with the known training sequences, the data receiver may determine the temporal position of the known training sequences in the receive data stream” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Albsmeier, because using correlation information would have helped to determine the temporal position of a training sequence in a data stream, as recognized by Bernhard.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albsmeier et al. (US 20120249140 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20170272279 A1) and Bernhard et al. (US 20160006560 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gu et al. (US 20210194743 A1).
Regarding Claim 5. Albsmeier is silent as to the language of
The method as claimed in claim 3,
wherein determining the synchronization information and/or the channel estimation information of the received signal comprises:
acquiring correlation information of the correlation peak, the correlation information comprising a maximum amplitude of the correlation peak and/or a correlation value identified with the correlation peak; and
determining the channel estimation information based upon the maximum amplitude of the correlation peak and/or the correlation value identified with the correlation peak.
Nevertheless Gu teaches:
acquiring correlation information of the correlation peak, the correlation information comprising a maximum amplitude of the correlation peak and/or a correlation value identified with the correlation peak (See para[0007] and para[0059] – para[0060]: calculating a frequency offset estimation value by using the two consecutive peak values.); and
determining the channel estimation information based upon the maximum amplitude of the correlation peak and/or the correlation value identified with the correlation peak (See para[0007] and para[0033]: Peak values of the cross-correlation function of the received signal and the local sequence are used as a determination basis for signal detection and system synchronization, and based on the determination basis, a symbol timing and frequency offset estimation method based on peak value detection is constructed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albsmeier by acquiring correlation information of the correlation peak, the correlation information comprising a maximum amplitude of the correlation peak and/or a correlation value identified with the correlation peak; and determining the channel estimation information based upon the maximum amplitude of the correlation peak and/or the correlation value identified with the correlation peak such as that of Gu. Gu teaches, “In order to solve the problem that the synchronization method based on detection of the peak value of the autocorrelation function in the conventional technology is constraint by a detection threshold and is susceptible to an interference signal, which causes false synchronization, an anti-interference signal detection and synchronization method based on detection of peak values of a cross-correlation function of a received signal and a local sequence is provided according to the present disclosure” (See para[0007]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Albsmeier, because determining channel estimation using correlation peaks would have helped to provide anti-interference signal detection, as recognized by Gu.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albsmeier et al. (US 20120249140 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20170272279 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lanneer et al. (US 20220271979 A1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 12. Albsmeier teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1 or the method as claimed in claim 11,
wherein the multiple training symbol sets comprise random symbol numbers (See para[0025]: The training sequences and correlation sequences may be generated in a pseudo random fashion or selected in a pseudo random fashion from a predetermined set of training sequences and correlation sequences.) and
Albsmeier is silent as to the language of:
wherein the multiple training symbol sets have Dirac pulse correlation.
Nevertheless Lanneer teaches:
wherein the multiple training symbol sets have Dirac pulse correlation (See para[0081]: the predetermined sequence may be optimized to have an autocorrelation property that resembles a Dirac impulse to obtain good synchronization and channel estimation performance by the correlation unit 340.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Albsmeier wherein the multiple training symbol sets have Dirac pulse correlation such as that of Lanneer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Albsmeier, because using training symbol sets with Dirac pulse correlation would have helped to obtain good synchronization and channel estimation performance, as recognized by Lanneer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 would be allowable for disclosing:
in response to a determination that the candidate training sequence does not comprise the multiple training symbol sets, updating the candidate training sequence; and
repeating the determination of whether the candidate training sequence comprises the multiple training symbol sets.
The prior art Albsmeier et al. (US 20120249140 A1) teaches communicating with an MRI machine and synchronizing transmissions using a training sequence (See para[0024] – para[0027]). However, Albsmeier either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “in response to a determination that the candidate training sequence does not comprise the multiple training symbol sets, updating the candidate training sequence” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
The prior art Zhao et al. (US 20170272279 A1) teaches using a periodic training sequence (See para[0058]). However, Zhao either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “in response to a determination that the candidate training sequence does not comprise the multiple training symbol sets, updating the candidate training sequence” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Thus, these limitations, in combination with the other elements of the claims, are neither anticipated by nor obvious in view of the prior art of record and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 would be allowable for depending from claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ozdemir et al. (Ozdemir, Özgür, et al. "Joint frame synchronization and channel estimation: Sparse recovery approach and USRP implementation." IEEE Access 7 (2019): 39041-39053.) discloses using periodic training frames from synchronization and channel estimation (See Abstract and Page 39043).
Nakajima (US 20230080783 A1) discloses using a training pilot sequence for channel estimation and using a different training pilot sequence for radio wave environment analysis (See Abstract, Fig. 2, and para[0030].).
Fan et al. (US 20200007377 A1) discloses correlating training symbols over multiple frames (See Fig. 4 and para[0071] – para[0072]).
Anand (US 9166837 B2) discloses using a training sequence and a portion of the training sequence as a guard period (See Fig. 6 and Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863