DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 11/11/2025.
Claim 1 is pending.
Claim 1 is rejected.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 11/11/2025. Claim 1 was amended and claim 1 remains pending.
Amendment to claim 1 in response to objections under informalities has been considered. The amendment to the claims obviates previously raised objections, as such the objections are hereby withdrawn.
Amendment to the specification has been entered, reviewed and found to obviated previously raised objection. Objection is hereby withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Amendment to the Specifications, specifically “Ppdpu(n) represents an average power delay profile of the received antennas, calculated over a window of size jjj using the squared magnitude of the received signal samples,” as noted in the amendments on page 4 of the applicant’s response noting Amendments to the Specification, is objected to because the “jjj” appears to be a typographical error since there is no “jjj” variable.
Amendment to the Specifications, specifically “Delta1 is calculated during an initial assessment step as detailed in paragraphs which describe a the second step — reference formula biii) of the specification” as noted in the amendments on page 8 of the applicant’s response noting Amendments to the Specifications, is objected to because the language noting paragraphs in the Specifications are not clear to what is being referenced to. Furthermore, the language “a the second step” appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 11/11/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The amendment, notably “Look up the standard table 38.211 according to 3GPP document Chapter 6, the value of the original physical value (root physical) corresponds to the original chain value (root sequence) at. For example, it is 32 determining a root physical value corresponding to a current root sequence according to table 6.3.3.1 of 3GPP Technical Specification TS 38.211, Version 15.10.0 (September 2019), wherein a root sequence of 32 corresponds to a root physical value of 17, and obtaining a remainder of 17/3 equal to 2. Take the 139 chain residue for the configuration that is using two chains, each string of four windows (with configuration 2), the residual part is 3, the last part of 19 computing a sequence remainder of 139 with the current configuration, yielding two sequences with four windows per sequence when the configuration equals 2, wherein the first remainder is 3 and the last remainder is 19”, as noted in the Amendment to the Specifications on page 5 of the Applicant’s response.
The amendment, notably “associating a number of receive antennas with a predefined resource index, wherein 1 receive antenna corresponds to index 29, 2 receive antennas correspond to index 37, 4 receive antennas correspond to index 42, and 8 receive antennas correspond to index 53”, as noted in the Amendment to the Specifications on page 6 of the Applicant’s response.
The amendment, notably “This ratio serves as a reference metric to evaluate the present spectral utilization efficiency, refer the Figure 6”, as noted in the Amendment to the Specifications on page 7 of the Applicant’s response.
The amendment, notably “Performing late compensation on a transfer card based on evaluation coefficients Delta, and Delta2, wherein Delta1 is calculated during an initial assessment step as detailed in paragraphs which describe a the second step — reference formula biii) of the specification, and Delta2, is determined as follows: if Delta1, is greater than a calibration parameter Paramscalib, calculate Delta2, in a third step comprising reference formula cii); otherwise, if Delta1, is less than or equal to Paramscalib, perform a fourth step comprising an adjustment calculation based on Delta1, without requiring Delta2, as described in paragraph below of the specification”, as noted in the Amendment to the Specifications on page 8 of the Applicant’s response.
The amendment, notably “TOi is the initial reference value of the sample deviation range parameter for the baseline path (original road’) as defined during system initialization”, as noted in the Amendment to the Specifications on page 8 of the Applicant’s response.
The amendment, notably “Oi is the initial reference value of the transmission power parameter for the baseline path (original road’) as defined during system initialization”, as noted in the Amendment to the Specifications on page 8 of the Applicant’s response.
The amendment, notably “calculating a delay parameter, defined as a sample deviation range, according to a formula specified in step (di) for transfer-card delay compensation; and determining a transmission power parameter according to a formula specified in step (di1) for transfer-card power compensation”, as noted in the Amendment to the Specifications on page 9 of the Applicant’s response.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determining a root physical value corresponding to a current root sequence according to look up standard table 38.211 according to 3GPP document chapter 6” lacks enablement for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a root physical value using information within a table within a 3GPP document. The mere recitation of “3GPP document chapter 6” is not sufficient to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine which of many 3GPP documents published for wireless communications to identify and look up a particular table within such a document to determine a “root physical value.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “perform a fourth step comprising an adjustment calculation based on Delta1, without requiring Delta2” lacks enablement because the limitation was not in the original disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at performing calculations without the requirement of Delta2.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “TOi is an initial reference value of a sample deviation range parameter for a baseline path (‘original road’) as defined during system initialization” lacks enablement because the limitation was not in the original disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to implement the value that is used to calculate a delayed compensation value.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “POi is an initial reference value of the transmission power parameter for the baseline path (‘original road’) as defined during system initialization” lacks enablement because the limitation was not in the original disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to implement the value that is used to calculate a power offset value for capacity compensation.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “perform a fourth step comprising an adjustment calculation based on Delta1, without requiring Delta2” lacks written description and is therefore new matter because the limitation was not in the original disclosure to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art to how to arrive at performing calculations without the requirement of Delta2.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “TOi is an initial reference value of a sample deviation range parameter for a baseline path (‘original road’) as defined during system initialization” lacks written description and is therefore new matter because the limitation was not in the original disclosure to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art to how implement the value that is used to calculate a delayed compensation value.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “POi is an initial reference value of the transmission power parameter for the baseline path (‘original road’) as defined during system initialization” lacks written description and is therefore new matter because the limitation was not in the original disclosure to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art how to implement the value that is used to calculate a power offset value for capacity compensation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “Ppdpu(n) represents an average power delay profile of the received antennas, calculated over a window of size jjj using the squared magnitude of the received signal samples” is indefinite because it is unclear to what the “jjj” variable is in relation to the Ppdpu calculation, which appears to require the use of the variable “n.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determining a root physical value corresponding to a current root sequence according to look up standard table 38.211 according to 3GPP document chapter 6” is indefinite because it is unclear to what standard document for 3GPP that the claim is trying to identify and incorporate for use since 3GPP documents are known as technical specifications with a specific title, type and series, and it raises uncertainty to what information is supposed to be referred to for identifying the current root sequence.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “calculating a delay parameter, defined as a sample deviation range, according to a formula specified in step (di) for transfer-card delay compensation; and determining a transmission power parameter according to a formula specified in step (dii) for transfer-card power compensation.” is indefinite because it is unclear to what steps the claim is referring to when step(di) and step(dii) are not within the claim and therefore raises issue to what formulas are being referred to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 19 of applicant’s response, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered in view of the amendments to the claim. However, in view of the amendments to the specifications and claim 1, a new grounds of rejection has been made to address the amendments accordingly.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412