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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 15 January 2024, have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is noted that the claim set filed on 15 January 2024 contains numerous issues with regards to grammar and confusing language. It is requested that each claim language is carefully reviewed beyond the listed objections below in order to best understand and clearly interpret the claimed invention as a whole. For examination on the merits, the claims will be broadly interpreted as best understood.
Regarding claim 1, the language of the claim is awkward. The full claim appears to be the preamble leaving no body with active limitations. There is no clear distinction between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “by relay node after corrupted by respective channels” in lines 6-7. The language of the claim is awkward and confusing.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the relay node transceivers” in line 7.
Regarding claim 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the transceiver” in line 1.
Regarding claim 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the data detection” in line 7.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the IVBI method” in line 2.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “a data module to handles the data signals” in line 3. The language of the claim is awkward and confusing.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the data signals” in line 4.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the hybrid beam forming structure” in line 5.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the effective signal” in line 7.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “one particular channel is estimated considering the other channel to be known and vice versa” in line 4.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “the transceivers are disposed on two vehicles (U1 and U2) wants to communicate with each other” in lines 1-2. The language of the claim is awkward and confusing.
Regarding claim 5, the use of reference characters in parentheses (for example, “(U1 and U2)” or “(200: Rk, k=1, 2,..,k,)”) is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. If the elements are to be considered as part of the claimed limitation, it is suggested to positively mention these reference characters in the claim and not just in parentheses.
Regarding claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the relay nodes” in lines 2-3.
Regarding claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the vehicles” in line 4.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “thereby CSI forwarding (EF) protocol” in line 5. The language of the claim is awkward and confusing.
Regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the nodes” in line 1.
Regarding claim 7, the language of the claim is awkward. The full claim appears to be the preamble leaving no body with active limitations. There is no clear distinction between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, it is suggested to replace the claimed limitation “atleast” in line 4 with --at least--.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “by the relay node after corrupted by respective channels” in lines 6-7. The language of the claim is awkward and confusing.
Regarding claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the relay node transceivers” in line 8.
Regarding claim 8, the language of the claim is awkward. The full claim appears to be the preamble leaving no body with active limitations. There is no clear distinction between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the use of reference characters in parentheses (for example, “(U1)”, “(Rk)”, “(U2”), “(NC)”, “(U1 and U2)”, etc.) is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims. If the elements are to be considered as part of the claimed limitation, it is suggested to positively mention these reference characters in the claim and not just in parentheses.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the first vehicle” in line 3.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the second vehicle” in line 8.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the nodes” in line 14.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “by the relay node (Rk) which corrupted in channels .. between nodes U1 and Rk and U2 and Rk and noise therebetween” in lines 17-19. The language of the claim is awkward and confusing.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the received CSI” in line 24.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the precoded data” in line 26.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the superimposed data” in line 29.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the beamformed data signal” in line 30.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the superimposed beamformed data signal” in line 31.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the help” in line 7.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the effective received pilot signal” in line 9.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the channel gain” in line 10.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “to evaluates the updated posterior distribution” in lines 15-16. The language of the claim is awkward and confusing.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by the claimed limitation “followed updating the posterior distribution” in lines 16. The language of the claim is awkward and confusing.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the current estimates” in line 19.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the final estimated channels” in line 21.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the transmission of the actual data phase” in lines 22-23.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pilot module”, “a data module” in claim 2; “a channel estimation module”, “a data module” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3 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.
Claim limitations “a pilot module”, “a data module” in claim 2 and “a channel estimation module”, “a data module” in claim 3 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
For “a pilot module” and “a data module” of claim 2, no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
For “a channel estimation module” and “a data module” of claim 3, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim and no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachid et al. (PG Pub US 2023/0033786 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US Patent No. 9,948,377 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, Rachid discloses a system and a method.
at least two transceivers engaged in communication; and at least one relay node for establishing communication between said two transceivers (fig. 4);
said transceivers involve simultaneous pilot transmission by transmitting pilot signals towards the relay node which are received by relay node (“at each relay device .. that includes pilots from the N source devices .. the source devices may transmit pilots at approximately the same time” [0080]) after corrupted by respective channels between the relay node transceivers (“The error signal may provide information about interference signal(s) that are received at one or more relay devices, and subsequently relayed to the destination device (along with the predetermined signal)” [0100]); and
said relay node estimates the channels and forward back estimated channel state information (CSI) (“The aggregate channel estimation at each relay device may be found by forming a single CSI measurement on an incoming aggregate channel that includes pilots from the N source devices” [0080], where the CSI feedback is implied).
However, Rachid does not explicitly disclose by involving iterative variational Bayesian inference (IVBI) based channel estimator and forward back estimated channel state information (CSI) to transceivers for data transmission therebetween.
Nevertheless, Kim discloses “determines channel state information (CSI) of the mmWave channel using a Bayesian inference on each pilot transmission beam according to a probabilistic model of the mmWave channel including statistics on paths and spread of mmWaves propagating in the mmWave channel and determines, using the CSI, a mapping between different AoDs and values of the symbols, further comprising: a transceiver to transmit the mapping to the transmitter” [claim 10].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have iterative variational Bayesian inference (IVBI) based channel estimator and forward back estimated channel state information (CSI) to transceivers for data transmission because this will allow “transmission in mmWave spectrum that can take advantage from multiple antennas to increase data rate” (col 1 lines 53-54).
Regarding claim 2, Rachid, Kim discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Rachid discloses the transceiver includes a pilot module having a pilot signal generator (“the source devices may transmit pilots” [0080]); and a data module having a transmitter section involving user data generation followed by data precoding for hybrid beam formation by precoders and combiners which are designed following a hybrid analog and digital architecture, a receiver section for combining received beamformed signal followed by the data detection (“the baseband samples may be processed using one or more operations such as weighting, processing with a weighting function, precoding, beamforming, time-compression, pilot-insertion, and/or other(s)” [0071], “transmit beamforming may be used by multiple devices as part of transmission to a single device (such as from multiple relay devices to the destination device, or other scenarios). In some embodiments, transmit beamforming may be used by multiple devices as part of transmission to multiple devices (such as from multiple source devices to multiple relay devices, or other scenarios)” [0092]; Further, Kim discloses “hybrid analog-digital structure and multiple RF chains” col 9 line 21).
Regarding claim 4, Rachid, Kim discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Kim discloses the IVBI based channel estimator estimates the channels between the transceivers and the relay node by adopting alternative minimization method for channel estimation, in which, one particular channel is estimated considering the other channel to be known and vice versa (“determines channel state information (CSI) of the mmWave channel using a Bayesian inference on each pilot transmission beam according to a probabilistic model of the mmWave channel including statistics on paths and spread of mmWaves propagating in the mmWave channel” [claim 10], “Since signal y.sub.c is a function of two unknown symbols p and s, the receiver uses a joint detector 730 to decide them by minimizing the following metric” col 12 lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 6, Rachid, Kim discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Rachid discloses the nodes are equipped with multiple antennas for transmission and reception (“the networking device 200 can include more than one transceiver .. the networking device 200 may have separate transceivers for receiving and transmitting signals .. the networking device 200 can be a MIMO networking device or other networking device” [0045]).
Claims 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rachid, Kim in view of Makki et al. (WO 2019/149353 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rachid, Kim discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Kim discloses the relay node includes a channel estimation module for channel estimation following the IVBI method in order to generate the CSI (“the processor determines channel state information (CSI) of the mmWave channel using a Bayesian inference on each pilot transmission beam according to a probabilistic model of the mmWave channel including statistics on paths and spread of mmWaves propagating in the mmWave channel” [claim 10]); and a data module to handles the data signals transmitted by the transceivers following the hybrid beam forming structure, whereby on reception of data signals from the transceivers, the relay node performs combing followed by precoding (“due to full use of hybrid analog-digital structure and multiple RF chains, any combiners can be formed in the receiver” col 9 lines 21-23, “determines the dictionary matrix and the signal vector from the precoding and mixing vectors, as well as transmitter and receiver manifold vectors, using various algebraic operations which encompass sparse recovery formulation 500” col 7 lines 40-43).
However, Rachid, Kim does not explicitly disclose retransmits the effective signal towards the transceivers.
Nevertheless, Makki discloses “configure a data re-transmission between the network node and a second main antenna based on the CSI” page 13 lines 22-27.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to retransmit the effective signal towards the transceivers because “the communication system becomes more robust since re- transmissions are provided for with accurate CSI” (page 3 lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 5, Rachid, Kim discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Kim discloses each relay node follows the estimation of mmWave channels between the vehicles U.sub.1, U.sub.2 and the relay R.sub.k and thereby CSI forwarding (EF) protocol (“the set of antennas receives pilot transmission beams transmitted over a Millimeter wave (mmWave) channel, wherein the processor determines channel state information (CSI) of the mmWave channel using a Bayesian inference on each pilot transmission beam according to a probabilistic model of the mmWave channel including statistics on paths and spread of mmWaves propagating in the mmWave channel” [claim 10]).
However, Rachid, Kim does not explicitly disclose the transceivers are disposed on two vehicles wants to communicate with each other and the relay nodes are present at road-side.
Nevertheless, Makki discloses “The modular moving relay network results in better channel quality prediction” page 7 lines 6-7, “the vehicle 101 shown in Fig 1 a is suitable for the communication system 100 discussed above. Examples of vehicles include, e.g., cars, trucks, trains, subway cars, motorcycles, and other vehicles and objects moving with high velocity” page 13 lines 6-9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two vehicles wants to communicate with each other and the relay nodes are present at road-side because “the communication system becomes more robust since re- transmissions are provided for with accurate CSI” (page 3 lines 16-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the claim objections as described above are addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 12/17/2025