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 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 first correlator configured to compare the first differential symbol sequence to a first differential sync word”, and
“a second correlator configured to compare the second differential symbol sequence to a second differential sync word” in claim 1.
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 1 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.
The term “substantially matches” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially matches” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because “substantially matches” is indefinite, “match signal” is indefinite. Claims 2-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 1.
The term “match signal” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “match signal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurney et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0175123) in view of Otterbach et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,154,871).
Please note: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04 II Contingent Limitations). Accordingly, patentable weight is not given because the generating a first match signal, generating a second match signal, and establishing steps are not performed if the disclosed condition is not met.
Regarding claim 18, Gurney teaches receiving a symbol sequence in a wireless communication frame transmitted from the second wireless device ([0023]: FIG. 2, a burst modulated RF signal (200) may include a QPSK RF modulated input data stream having a plurality of data bursts (210)); generating a first differential symbol sequence by differentiating the received symbol sequence ([0015]: both a lower order demodulation (e.g., differentially detected BPSK modulation) and a higher order demodulation (e.g., coherently detected QPSK modulation); [0029]: process is performed on the received signal utilizing CQPSK demodulation); comparing the first differential symbol sequence to a first differential sync word ([0041]: a hybrid DBPSK/CQPSK search method is employed… a DBPSK sync word detection and correlation search process (step 450); generating a first match signal if the first differential symbol sequence matches the first differential sync word ([0048]: If, however, the DBPSK correlator does find the sync word (YES, step 460) during the DBPSK correlation (step 450)); comparing the second differential symbol sequence to a second differential sync word ([0041]: a hybrid DBPSK/CQPSK search method is employed; Fig. 4: Perform CQPSK Correlation (470) and [0029]: a second sync word detection and correlation process is performed); generating a second match signal if the second differential symbol sequence matches the second differential sync word ([0029]: If the CQPSK correlation results in a sync word being found (YES, step 480)); and establishing a link between the first wireless device and the second wireless device if both the first match signal and the second match signal are generated ([0022]: the media access control (130), or the central processing unit (150) prior to being transmitted to an external network or display device (not shown). The media access control (130) and processor (150) are primarily responsible for scheduling reception and transmissions on the communications channel.)
Gurney does not teach generating a second differential symbol sequence by differentiating the first differential symbol sequence, but Otterbach teaches generating a second differential (Col. 2, Lines 8-9: by demodulation, e.g. using alternating multiplication by +1 and -1) symbol sequence by differentiating the first differential symbol sequence (Col. 8, Lines 12-16: second unit contains two logical correlators connected in parallel… a first demodulator is connected in an incoming circuit… a second demodulator is connected in an incoming circuit; and Col. 8, Lines 32-33: a selector switch for selecting one of the output. Note: The selector outputs one differential symbol sequence from two distinct differential symbol sequences; thus, generating a second differential symbol sequence relative to the first differential symbol sequence.)
Otterbach teaches receiver architectures with serial processing elements and correlators for synchronization acquisition; Gurney teaches differential demodulation and correlation/search methods for burst acquisition and hybrid detection strategies. Both references address the common problem of detecting synchronization in received wireless bursts. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Otterbach’s receiver architecture with Gurney’s differential detection and hybrid search teachings to improve burst-acquisition robustness and support differential sync-word correlation in practical receivers (Gurney paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bothe et al. ((U.S. Patent No. 7,412,012) teaches a method and apparatus for using a sync word, demodulation, and multiple correlation steps to perform wireless communication synchronization.
De Ruijter (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0178870) teaches a method and system to determine a likelihood of synchronization between the received symbol sequence and the expected sync word.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY K MANNAVA whose telephone number is (571)272-9505. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 M-TH.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 571-270-3936. 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.
/VIJAY K MANNAVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2479
1/6/2026 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479