DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed on 11/7/2023.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to independent claim 1, where claim 1 states (with emphasis added), below:
1. A computer apparatus in a mobile platform comprising:
at least one antenna; and
at least one processor in data communication with a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
receive a signal via the at least one antenna;
apply a plurality of Doppler [frequency] offsets to the signal;
[#1)] associate each Doppler [frequency] offset signal with a Doppler [frequency] bin; and
[#2)] perform spectral analysis on each Doppler [frequency] offset signal to identify at least one Doppler [frequency] offset resulting in a highest correlator score.
Section 3a (below):
Where the Examiner notes that the instant claims are in poor condition.
First, the phrases “Doppler offsets”, “each Doppler offset signal”, and “Doppler offset” are stated multiple times in the claim without the use anticipate basis and thus logically the phrases “Doppler offsets”, “each Doppler offset signal”, and “Doppler offset” are introduced multiple times within independent claim, and thus creating confusion in regards to whether each second+ recitations of said phrases are ‘new’ signals/offsets or whether each of the second+ recitations of said phrases are references the original introduction said phrases. The where the multiple introductions of the phrases “Doppler offsets”, “each Doppler offset signal”, and “Doppler offset” in the independent claim 1 fail(s) the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II, which also renders the scope of claim 1 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II).
Furthermore, the multiple introductions of the phrases “Doppler offsets”, “each Doppler offset signal”, and “Doppler offset” also change between singular and plurality notation which further compounds the previously addressed indefinite scope of independent claim 1 (above).
Where independent claims 8 and 14, both recite similar limitations as independent claim 1, and thus independent claims 8 and 14 both rejected as having indefinite claim scope (with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II)) for similar rationale as claim 1 above.
Where dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of the corresponding independent/parent claim and thus are also rejected using similar rationale (as addressed above).
Section 3b (below):
Where claim 1 also states the vague and narrative limitation “associate each Doppler [frequency] offset signal with a Doppler [frequency] bin; and”. However, the meaning of the limitation “associate each Doppler [frequency] offset signal with a Doppler [frequency] bin; and” (in claim 1) with regards to the technical/engineering merits with respect to the knowledge and abilities of person having ordinary skill in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) has indefinite claim scope.
When taking into account the merits of the instant figures (e.g. instant figure 1) and merits of the instant Detailed Specification, the earlier limitation “apply a plurality of Doppler [frequency] offsets to the [received] signal” is implemented by the Doppler frequency shift units (within the plurality of Spectral Analysis units 102, 104, & 106 (with Doppler offsets 0, 1, and D-1)). Note that each of the Doppler frequency shift units are each labelled/shown graphically as
e
-
2
π
f
d
t
, where in instant paragraph [0018] variable “d is a Doppler bin index” (note the ‘d’ is lowercase).
With that context in mind (as addressed above), the limitation “associate each Doppler [frequency] offset signal with a Doppler [frequency] bin; and” also seems to be implemented by the plurality of the Doppler frequency shift units (each labelled/shown graphically as
e
-
2
π
f
d
t
, instant paragraph [0018] variable “d is a Doppler bin index”). In other words, what additional circuit and/or step/function is/are required (e.g. included and excluded) from the scope of the claim(s) by the limitation “associate each Doppler [frequency] offset signal with a Doppler [frequency] bin; and”?
Where the cited limitation “associate each Doppler [frequency] offset signal with a Doppler [frequency] bin; and” of claim 1 fail(s) to meet the threshold requirements for clarity and precision (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II) for defining clear “boundaries of the subject matter for which protection is sought” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.01) as well as “clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02) in regards to defining boundaries for implementing and/or performing the limitations independent claim 1 (in regards to knowledge and abilities of person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention).
Where independent claims 8 and 14, both recite similar limitations as independent claim 1, and thus independent claims 8 and 14 both rejected as having indefinite claim scope (with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II)) for similar rationale as claim 1 above.
Where dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of the corresponding independent/parent claim and thus are also rejected using similar rationale (as addressed above).
Section 3c (below):
Where claim 1 also states the vague and narrative limitation “perform spectral analysis on each Doppler [frequency] offset signal to identify at least one Doppler [frequency] offset resulting in a highest correlator score”. However, the meaning of the limitation “perform spectral analysis on each Doppler [frequency] offset signal to identify at least one Doppler [frequency] offset resulting in a highest correlator score” (in claim 1) the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II, which also renders the scope of claim 1 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II).
For example, the ‘spectral analysis’ is shown by instant figure 1 to be performed by Spectral Analysis units (with doppler offsets 0, 1, and D-1) 102, 104, and 106; however units 102, 104, and 106 do/does not perform correlation, let alone determine a “highest correlation score”. Next, the concept of ‘Doppler bin(s)’ is completely absent from the ‘each Doppler offset signal’ stated in last limitation of independent claim 1. Furthermore, what signal/waveform are each of the Doppler offset signal(s) being correlated/compared with (presumably the correlation operation/score occurs after the Doppler offset signals were ‘binned’)?
Moreover, the claimed limitation “perform spectral analysis on each Doppler [frequency] offset signal to identify at least one Doppler [frequency] offset resulting in a highest correlator score” of claim 1 also fail(s) the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II, which also renders the scope of claim 1 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II).
Where independent claims 8 and 14, both recite similar limitations as independent claim 1, and thus independent claims 8 and 14 both rejected as having indefinite claim scope (with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II)) for similar rationale as claim 1 above.
Where dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of the corresponding independent/parent claim and thus are also rejected using similar rationale (as addressed above).
Allowable Subject Matter
No allowable subject matter will be indicated until the above 112(b) issues are clarified/resolved (either by amendments or arguments).
Where the closest prior art of record are Beckmann et al. (USPN 8,098,765), Turner et al. (US 2016/0116599), and Krasney et al. (USPN 6,563,861).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. Perez, telephone number is (571)270-3231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10am to 6pm EST.
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, David C. Payne can be reached on (571)272-3024. 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.
/JAMES M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights