DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
As laid out in the previous Office Action, the information disclosure statement filed on 01/03/2025 does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(b) because: the applicant did not include a copy of NPL document number 5, Amendment 1 of Part 11 of the IEEE Draft Standard for Information Technology. Applicant instead included a copy of Amendment 4 of said draft standards. The applicant was given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of the notice sent in the previous Office Action to supply the above mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Because the applicant failed to timely comply with this notice, the above mentioned information disclosure statement will be placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/04/2025, have been entered into the record. Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set out in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/04/2025, have been considered but are moot. Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 8, and 15 overcome the rejections set out in the previous Office Action. However, a new ground of rejection, necessitated by said amendments, is used to reject said claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alaee-Kerahroodi et al. (M. Alaee-Kerahroodi, M. Modarres-Hashemi and M. M. Naghsh, "Designing Sets of Binary Sequences for MIMO Radar Systems," in IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 67, no. 13, pp. 3347-3360, 1 July1, 2019, doi: 10.1109/TSP.2019.2914878.), hereinafter Alaee-Kerahroodi, in view of Lomayev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0190637 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Alaee-Kerahroodi teaches (note: what Alaee-Kerahroodi does not disclose is struck through),
An apparatus, comprising: a memory, storing computer instructions; and a processor, configured to execute the computer instructions (p. 3355, right col., para. 3, “Let us consider a complete receiver processing unit (i.e., matched filter, Doppler and angle processing) for the waveforms emitted by a uniform linear array (ULA)-MIMO radar system”) to cause the apparatus to: iteratively update an input binary sequence pair using a coordinate descent algorithm (p. 3348, para. 3, “The resulting design problem is non-convex and we devise an effective method based on BCD to tackle it. We numerically show that the sets of binary sequences that are designed with the algorithm proposed in this paper are neighborhood to the available lower bounds [69], [70], indicating its superior performance.” The examiner notes that BCD stands for Binary Coordinate Descent); obtain an optimal binary sequence pair by searching the updated binary sequence pairs (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “After initialization by X(0), various code vectors…are optimized sequentially in step 2) of Algorithm 1 till convergence.”); synchronously update a target function value of the optimal binary sequence pair (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “Finally, when an entry xt0(d0) of the code xt0 is selected, the associated scalar optimization Problem Pwd,x(h)t is solved via Algorithm 3 to be discussed in the next section. “); determine, based on a predetermined condition, whether to update the binary sequence pair before updating to the binary sequence pair after updating, and correspondingly update the optimal binary sequence pair (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “When the code vector xt0 is selected, we resort to Algorithm 2, to obtain the optimized vector x*t0. In Algorithm 2, each entry of xt0 is optimized via CD technique. Herein, the superscript (h) denotes iterations for optimizing various entries in xt0; i.e., h varies from 0 to N−1 (number of correlation lags) at every call to Algorithm 2 (inner loop). Finally, when an entry xt0(d0) of the code xt0 is selected, the associated scalar optimization Problem…is solved” The examiner notes that the predetermined condition is being understood to be the optimized code vector x*, which becomes the updated binary pair for the optimization problem P of Algorithm 3); generate field comprises a sequence for target sensing, the sequence for target sensing being the optimal binary sequence pair; and send the [sequence] (p. 3355, right col., para. 3, “Herein, we present performance of the proposed sets of sequences in MIMO radar system with s. To this end, we consider a CDM-MIMO radar system with NT=3 transmit antennas (Tx), NR=4 receive antennas (Rx) in which M=32 pulses will send via each transmitter… The two targets have a separation 10 range-cells, however, as Fig. 9a depicts, just one of the two targets can be correctly detected when the MIMO radar system employs the sets of random sequences. In fact, the auto- and cross-correlations of the sets of random sequences have led to masking of the weaker target. In contrast, as Fig. 9b illustrates, the two targets can perfectly be discriminated when the proposed sets of sequences is employed. This figure illustrates that the better auto- and cross-correlation properties lead to the better detection.”).
Lomayev et al. discloses,
An apparatus (fig. 1, wireless communication devices 102 and 140) comprising: a memory, storing computer instructions; and a processor, configured to execute the computer instructions (“para. 0293, “Product 700 may include one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media 702, which may include computer-executable instructions, e.g., implemented by logic 704, operable to, when executed by at least one processor, e.g., computer processor, enable the at least one processor to implement one or more operations at device 102 “) to cause the apparatus to:…generate a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (fig. 5, noting that the first and second sequences of steps 502 and 504 are used to generate the EDMG PLCP PPDU that is then transmitted in step 506. See, e.g., para. 0288, “the EDMG PPDU including an EDMG CEF including the first sequence followed by the second sequence,”), wherein the PPDU comprises a training field (para. 0155, “In some demonstrative embodiments, the EDMG PPDU may include a Training (TRN) field including at least one of the first sequence or the second sequence, e.g., as described below.”)…and send the PPDU (fig. 5, step 506).
Lomayev et al. and Alaee-Kerahroodi are both analogous to the claimed invention, Lomayev et al. because it is directed to a device using a PPDU sequence and Alaee-Kerahroodi because it is directed to a training sequence for target sensing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the training field of Alaee-Kerahroodi on the apparatus of Lomayev et al. because Alaee-Kerahroodi is silent as to the physical apparatus on which the sequence should be implemented. Lomayev et al. is one example of a wireless device that uses a memory storing instructions and a processor to implement said instructions to generate and send a PPDU that comprises a training field comprising a sequence. Although the sequence of Lomayev et al. is used for communication rather than sensing, it is known in the art that sensing often involved in initializing communication. Therefore, implementing the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi on the apparatus of Lomayev et al. would be obvious because the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi requires an apparatus for implementation, and using a communication device as that apparatus would allow for said communication device to better initialize communication by using the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi et al. to sense moving and nonmoving objects.
Regarding claim 8, Alaee-Kerahroodi teaches (note: what Alaee-Kerahroodi does not disclose is struck through),
An apparatus, comprising: a memory, storing computer instructions; and a processor, configured to execute the computer instructions (p. 3355, right col., para. 3, “Let us consider a complete receiver processing unit (i.e., matched filter, Doppler and angle processing) for the waveforms emitted by a uniform linear array (ULA)-MIMO radar system”) to cause the apparatus to: iteratively update an input binary sequence pair using a coordinate descent algorithm (p. 3348, para. 3, “The resulting design problem is non-convex and we devise an effective method based on BCD to tackle it. We numerically show that the sets of binary sequences that are designed with the algorithm proposed in this paper are neighborhood to the available lower bounds [69], [70], indicating its superior performance.” The examiner notes that BCD stands for Binary Coordinate Descent); obtain an optimal binary sequence pair by searching the updated binary sequence pairs (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “After initialization by X(0), various code vectors…are optimized sequentially in step 2) of Algorithm 1 till convergence.”); synchronously update a target function value of the optimal binary sequence pair (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “Finally, when an entry xt0(d0) of the code xt0 is selected, the associated scalar optimization Problem Pwd,x(h)t is solved via Algorithm 3 to be discussed in the next section. “); determine, based on a predetermined condition, whether to update the binary sequence pair before updating to the binary sequence pair after updating, and correspondingly update the optimal binary sequence pair (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “When the code vector xt0 is selected, we resort to Algorithm 2, to obtain the optimized vector x*t0. In Algorithm 2, each entry of xt0 is optimized via CD technique. Herein, the superscript (h) denotes iterations for optimizing various entries in xt0; i.e., h varies from 0 to N−1 (number of correlation lags) at every call to Algorithm 2 (inner loop). Finally, when an entry xt0(d0) of the code xt0 is selected, the associated scalar optimization Problem…is solved” The examiner notes that the predetermined condition is being understood to be the optimized code vector x*, which becomes the updated binary pair for the optimization problem P of Algorithm 3); receive (p. 3355, right col., para. 3, “Herein, we present performance of the proposed sets of sequences in MIMO radar system with s. To this end, we consider a CDM-MIMO radar system with NT=3 transmit antennas (Tx), NR=4 receive antennas (Rx) in which M=32 pulses will send via each transmitter… The two targets have a separation 10 range-cells, however, as Fig. 9a depicts, just one of the two targets can be correctly detected when the MIMO radar system employs the sets of random sequences. In fact, the auto- and cross-correlations of the sets of random sequences have led to masking of the weaker target. In contrast, as Fig. 9b illustrates, the two targets can perfectly be discriminated when the proposed sets of sequences is employed. This figure illustrates that the better auto- and cross-correlation properties lead to the better detection.”).
Lomayev et al. discloses,
An apparatus (fig. 1, wireless communication devices 102 and 140) comprising: a memory, storing computer instructions; and a processor, configured to execute the computer instructions (“para. 0293, “Product 700 may include one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media 702, which may include computer-executable instructions, e.g., implemented by logic 704, operable to, when executed by at least one processor, e.g., computer processor, enable the at least one processor to implement one or more operations at device 102 “) to cause the apparatus to:…generate a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (fig. 5, noting that the first and second sequences of steps 502 and 504 are used to generate the EDMG PLCP PPDU that is then transmitted in step 506. See, e.g., para. 0288, “the EDMG PPDU including an EDMG CEF including the first sequence followed by the second sequence,”), wherein the PPDU comprises a training field (para. 0155, “In some demonstrative embodiments, the EDMG PPDU may include a Training (TRN) field including at least one of the first sequence or the second sequence, e.g., as described below)
Lomayev et al. and Alaee-Kerahroodi are both analogous to the claimed invention, Lomayev et al. because it is directed to a device using a PPDU sequence and Alaee-Kerahroodi because it is directed to a training sequence for target sensing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the training field of Alaee-Kerahroodi on the apparatus of Lomayev et al. because Alaee-Kerahroodi is silent as to the physical apparatus on which the sequence should be implemented. Lomayev et al. is one example of a wireless device that uses a memory storing instructions and a processor to implement said instructions to generate and send a PPDU that comprises a training field comprising a sequence. Although the sequence of Lomayev et al. is used for communication rather than sensing, it is known in the art that sensing often involved in initializing communication. Therefore, implementing the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi on the apparatus of Lomayev et al. would be obvious because the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi requires an apparatus for implementation, and using a communication device as that apparatus would allow for said communication device to better initialize communication by using the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi to sense moving and nonmoving objects.
Regarding claim 15, Alaee-Kerahroodi teaches (note: what Alaee-Kerahroodi does not disclose is struck through),
A chip system, comprising: a memory, storing computer instructions; and a processor, configured to execute the computer instructions (p. 3355, right col., para. 3, “Let us consider a complete receiver processing unit (i.e., matched filter, Doppler and angle processing) for the waveforms emitted by a uniform linear array (ULA)-MIMO radar system”) to cause the apparatus to: iteratively update an input binary sequence pair using a coordinate descent algorithm (p. 3348, para. 3, “The resulting design problem is non-convex and we devise an effective method based on BCD to tackle it. We numerically show that the sets of binary sequences that are designed with the algorithm proposed in this paper are neighborhood to the available lower bounds [69], [70], indicating its superior performance.” The examiner notes that BCD stands for Binary Coordinate Descent); obtain an optimal binary sequence pair by searching the updated binary sequence pairs (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “After initialization by X(0), various code vectors…are optimized sequentially in step 2) of Algorithm 1 till convergence.”); synchronously update a target function value of the optimal binary sequence pair (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “Finally, when an entry xt0(d0) of the code xt0 is selected, the associated scalar optimization Problem Pwd,x(h)t is solved via Algorithm 3 to be discussed in the next section. “); determine, based on a predetermined condition, whether to update the binary sequence pair before updating to the binary sequence pair after updating, and correspondingly update the optimal binary sequence pair (p. 3350, right col., para. 1, “When the code vector xt0 is selected, we resort to Algorithm 2, to obtain the optimized vector x*t0. In Algorithm 2, each entry of xt0 is optimized via CD technique. Herein, the superscript (h) denotes iterations for optimizing various entries in xt0; i.e., h varies from 0 to N−1 (number of correlation lags) at every call to Algorithm 2 (inner loop). Finally, when an entry xt0(d0) of the code xt0 is selected, the associated scalar optimization Problem…is solved” The examiner notes that the predetermined condition is being understood to be the optimized code vector x*, which becomes the updated binary pair for the optimization problem P of Algorithm 3); generate (p. 3355, right col., para. 3, “Herein, we present performance of the proposed sets of sequences in MIMO radar system with s. To this end, we consider a CDM-MIMO radar system with NT=3 transmit antennas (Tx), NR=4 receive antennas (Rx) in which M=32 pulses will send via each transmitter… The two targets have a separation 10 range-cells, however, as Fig. 9a depicts, just one of the two targets can be correctly detected when the MIMO radar system employs the sets of random sequences. In fact, the auto- and cross-correlations of the sets of random sequences have led to masking of the weaker target. In contrast, as Fig. 9b illustrates, the two targets can perfectly be discriminated when the proposed sets of sequences is employed. This figure illustrates that the better auto- and cross-correlation properties lead to the better detection.”).
Lomayev et al. discloses,
A chip system (fig. 1, wireless communication devices 102 and 140) comprising: a memory, storing computer instructions; and a processor, configured to execute the computer instructions (“para. 0293, “Product 700 may include one or more tangible computer-readable non-transitory storage media 702, which may include computer-executable instructions, e.g., implemented by logic 704, operable to, when executed by at least one processor, e.g., computer processor, enable the at least one processor to implement one or more operations at device 102 “) to cause the apparatus to:…generate a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) (fig. 5, noting that the first and second sequences of steps 502 and 504 are used to generate the EDMG PLCP PPDU that is then transmitted in step 506. See, e.g., para. 0288, “the EDMG PPDU including an EDMG CEF including the first sequence followed by the second sequence,”), wherein the PPDU comprises a training field (para. 0155, “In some demonstrative embodiments, the EDMG PPDU may include a Training (TRN) field including at least one of the first sequence or the second sequence, e.g., as described below.”)…and send the PPDU (fig. 5, step 506).
Lomayev et al. and Alaee-Kerahroodi are both analogous to the claimed invention, Lomayev et al. because it is directed to a device using a PPDU sequence and Alaee-Kerahroodi because it is directed to a training sequence for target sensing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the training field of Alaee-Kerahroodi on the apparatus of Lomayev et al. because Alaee-Kerahroodi is silent as to the physical apparatus on which the sequence should be implemented. Lomayev et al. is one example of a wireless device that uses a memory storing instructions and a processor to implement said instructions to generate and send a PPDU that comprises a training field comprising a sequence. Although the sequence of Lomayev et al. is used for communication rather than sensing, it is known in the art that sensing often involved in initializing communication. Therefore, implementing the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi on the apparatus of Lomayev et al. would be obvious because the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi requires an apparatus for implementation, and using a communication device as that apparatus would allow for said communication device to better initialize communication by using the sequence of Alaee-Kerahroodi to sense moving and nonmoving objects.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alaee-Kerahroodi in view of Lomayev et al. and further in view of Wang et al. (J. Wang, P. Fan, Z. Zhou and Y. Yang, "Doppler Resilient Sequences with Low Local Ambiguity Functions for Fully Polarimetric Radar Systems," 2019 Ninth International Workshop on Signal Design and its Applications in Communications (IWSDA), Dongguan, China, 2019, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/IWSDA46143.2019.8966119.)
Regarding claim 2, Alaee-Kerahroodi as modified by Lomayev et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Alaee-Kerahroodi does not teach,
…wherein the sequence for target sensing is obtained based on a binary sequence pair, an Alamouti matrix, and a Prouhet-Thue-Morse PTM sequence, wherein the Alamouti matrix comprises:
A
0
=
x
,
-
y
~
y
,
x
~
a
n
d
A
1
=
-
y
~
,
-
x
x
,
~
-
y
in response to x and y being the binary sequence pair,
x
~
and
y
~
are respectively inverted complex conjugates of x and y, A0 corresponds to 0 in the PTM sequence, A1 corresponds to 1 in the PTM sequence, a length of the PTM sequence is 2M+1, and M is an integer greater than 0
Wang et al. teaches,
…wherein the sequence for target sensing is obtained based on a binary sequence pair (“In this paper, our purpose is not to find a new transmission order but to find a new sequence pair x , y”), an Alamouti matrix, and a Prouhet-Thue-Morse PTM sequence (“The PTM sequence and the Alamouti matrix are still used to determine the sequences formed from x , y”), wherein the Alamouti matrix comprises:
A
0
=
x
,
-
y
~
y
,
x
~
a
n
d
A
1
=
-
y
~
,
-
x
x
,
~
-
y
in response to x and y being the binary sequence pair,
x
~
and
y
~
are respectively inverted complex conjugates of x and y, A0 corresponds to 0 in the PTM sequence, A1 corresponds to 1 in the PTM sequence, a length of the PTM sequence is 2M+1, and M is an integer greater than 0 (eq. 36 shows the resulting PTM-A matrix when N = 8 (i.e. M = 1). Acquiring this matrix requires the Alamouti matrix above. See also eq. 11).
Wang et al. is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alaee-Kerahroodi with the sequence of Wang because the sequency generation process of Wang results in a binary pair with low auto-correlation and low cross-correlation for Doppler sensing.
Regarding claim 3, Alaee-Kerahroodi in view of Lomayev et al. and further in view of Wang et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 2. Alaee-Kerahroodi does not teach,
…wherein in response to M = 1, the sequences for target sensing are SVm11 and SHm12, wherein SVm11 and SHm12 are:
S
V
m
11
=
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
;
a
n
d
S
H
m
12
=
[
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
]
Wang et al. teaches,
…wherein in response to M = 1, the sequences for target sensing are SVm11 and SHm12, wherein SVm11 and SHm12 are:
S
V
m
11
=
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
;
a
n
d
S
H
m
12
=
[
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
]
(eq. 36, noting that Wang et al. gives SV and Sh as one matrix rather than two separate vectors)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alaee-Kerahroodi with the sequence of Wang because the sequency generation process of Wang results in a binary pair with low auto-correlation and low cross-correlation for Doppler sensing.
Regarding claim 4, Alaee-Kerahroodi in view of Lomayev et al. and further in view of Wang et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 2. Alaee-Kerahroodi does not teach,
…wherein in response to M = 2, the sequences for target sensing are SVm21 and SHm22, wherein SVm21 and SHm22 are:
S
V
m
21
=
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
;
a
n
d
S
H
m
22
=
[
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
]
Wang et al. further discloses (note: what Wang et al. does not disclose is struck through)
…wherein in response to M = 2, the sequences for target sensing are SVm21 and SHm22,
S
V
m
21
=
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
;
a
n
d
S
H
m
22
=
[
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
]
(eq. 36, noting that the reference gives SV and Sh as one matrix rather than two separate vectors. The Examiner notes that eqs. 12 defines a PTM-A sequence that could be easily solved for N = 8)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alaee-Kerahroodi with the sequence of Wang because the sequency generation process of Wang results in a binary pair with low auto-correlation and low cross-correlation for Doppler sensing. Although Wang et al. only explicitly teaches the sequences for target sensing when M = 1, it is a simple combination of parts to take the Alamouti matrix in eq. 11 implement it with a PTM sequence with a length of 8 rather than a sequence with a length of 4, as Wang et al. does in eq. 36. Both Alamouti matrices and PTM sequences of length 8 are known in the art, and eq. 36 of Wang et al. is taught to be only one possible implementation of the combined Alamouti matrix and PTM sequence, being introduced in the section of Wang et al. titled “Numerical Experiments.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang et al. to use a PTM sequence of length 8 rather than length 4 with the Alamouti matrix to generate a longer sequence for target sensing.
Regarding claim 5, Alaee-Kerahroodi in view of Lomayev et al. and further in view of Wang et al. the apparatus according to claim 2. Alaee-Kerahroodi does not teach,
…wherein in response to M = 3, the sequences for target sensing are SVm31 and SHm32,
S
V
m
31
=
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
;
a
n
d
S
H
m
32
=
[
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
]
Wang et al. further discloses (note: what Wang et al. does not disclose is struck through)
…wherein in response to M = 3, the sequences for target sensing are SVm31 and SHm32,
S
V
m
31
=
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
-
y
~
,
-
x
,
x
,
-
y
~
;
a
n
d
S
H
m
32
=
[
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
x
~
,
-
y
,
y
,
x
~
]
(eq. 36, noting that the reference gives SV and Sh as one matrix rather than two separate vectors. The Examiner notes that eqs. 12 defines a PTM-A sequence that could be easily solved for N = 8)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alaee-Kerahroodi with the sequence of Wang because the sequency generation process of Wang results in a binary pair with low auto-correlation and low cross-correlation for Doppler sensing. Although Wang et al. only explicitly teaches the sequences for target sensing when M = 1, it is a simple combination of parts to take the Alamouti matrix in eq. 11 implement it with a PTM sequence with a length of 16 rather than a sequence with a length of 4, as Wang et al. does in eq. 36. PTM sequences of length 16 are well-known in the art, and eq. 36 of Wang et al. is taught to be only one possible implementation of the combined Alamouti matrix and PTM sequence, being introduced in the section of Wang et al. titled “Numerical Experiments.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang et al. to use a PTM sequence of length 16 rather than length 4 with the Alamouti matrix to generate a longer sequence for target sensing.
Regarding claim 6, Alaee-Kerahroodi in view of Lomayev et al. and further in view of Wang et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 2. Alaee-Kerahroodi does not teach,
… wherein a sequence length of the binary sequence pair includes any one of the following: 256 bits, 512 bits, 1024 bits, 2048 bits
Lomayev et al. discloses,
…wherein a sequence length of the binary sequence pair includes any one of the following: 256 bits, 512 bits, 1024 bits, 2048 bits (paras. 0276-0277, “In some demonstrative embodiments, an EDMG-CEF for a channel bonding of 3 channels may be defined using the Golay complementary pairs (Ga256, Gb256), for example, to define GSS for a maximum of 8 streams, or even for up to 16 streams. In some demonstrative embodiments, a pair of sequences Gu1024 and Gv1024 with a length of 1024 samples may be defined”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Alaee-Kerahroodi with the sequence of Wang because the sequency generation process of Wang results in a binary pair with low auto-correlation and low cross-correlation for Doppler sensing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the 256-bit binary pair of Lomayev et al. with the Quasi Z-complementary Pair with low cross correlation coordinated by the Prouhet-Thou-Morse-Alamouti matrix (PTM-A matrix) of Wang et al. because Wang et al. specifically states that one benefit of using Doppler-Resistant Quasi Z-complementary (DR-QZCP) sequences is the flexibility they lend to sequence length (see section I, para. 4), although Wang et al. is silent as to the maximum reasonable length of said DR-QZCP pairs. Wang et al. further notes that Golay complementary pairs have been used in the past to minimize autocorrelation and cross-correlation in fully polarimetric radar systems through PTM-A coordination (see section I, para. 3), and indicates that DR-QZCP sequences are preferrable to Golay sequences because of their flexible lengths. Lomayev et al. introduces 256-bit and 1024-bit Golay complementary pairs. A person of ordinary skill in the art, in knowing that 256-bit and 1024-bit Golay complementary pairs exist would understand that the DR-QZCP algorithm of Wang et al. (see Algorithm 1) could be used to generate pairs of similar length.
Regarding claim 7, Alaee-Kerahroodi in view of Lomayev et al. and further in view of Wang et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 2. Alaee-Kerahroodi does not teach,
…wherein a sequence length of the binary sequence pair is the 256 bits
Lomayev et al. discloses,
…wherein a sequence length of the binary sequence pair is the 256 bits (paras. 0276-0277, “In some demonstrative embodiments, an EDMG-CEF for a channel bonding of 3 channels may be defined using the Golay complementary pairs (Ga256, Gb256), for example, to define GSS for a maximum of 8 streams, or even for up to 16 streams.)
Alaee-Kerahroodi, Wang et al., and Lomayev et al. do not disclose the specific binary pair Sn2561 and Sn2562 in the applicant’s claims. However, the applicant does not claim the method of creating the binary pair Sn2561 and Sn2562, nor any special characteristics about the pair. Additionally, Algorithm 1 of Wang et al. teaches generating binary pairs with low autocorrelation and low cross-correlation of varying lengths, characteristics shared by the claimed binary pair. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Algorithm 1 of Wang et al., inputting a length L of 256 bits as taught by Lomayev et al., to generate a binary pair. Given that the claimed binary pair has the same features that Algorithm 1 of Wang et al. seeks out, using the algorithm to generate the claimed binary is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Absent any claim limitations specifying how Sn2561 and Sn2562 are generated, the bald values of the sequences are not in and of themselves novel and non-obvious over Algorithm 1 of Wang et al. with a length of 256 bits as taught by Lomayev et al.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liang et al. (CN 111953630 A) discloses an apparatus that transmits and receives a PPDU comprising a training field
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights