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
This application claims the priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application, Serial Nos. 62/557,116 (filed 09/11/2017). No support is found in the above application for the content of claims 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 8 – 9, 11 – 14, 16, 18 – 19, 21 – 22, 24 and 27 – 28. Specifically, the applications lack the disclosure of Figures 9 – 28. The specification of the provisional application does not disclose of the claimed invention. Therefore, the earliest effective filing date for the instant claims 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 8 – 9, 11 – 14, 16, 18 – 19, 21 – 22 and 24 is the filing date of the PCT application of September 10, 2018.
Possible Status as Continuation-in-Part
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 16/643,813, filed February 03, 2020, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
New Claim 27 recites of “wherein the one or more bits are carried in one or more space time block coding (STBC) bits of the SIG field.” which has not been presented in the prior application 16/643,813 (cancelled claims 7 or 20). The specification only discloses of a preamble containing a STBC bit (Fig.7B).
New Claim 28 recites of “wherein the one or more bits are carried in one or more bandwidth (BW) indication bits of the SIG field.” which has not been presented in the prior application 16/643,813 (cancelled claims 10 or 23). The specification only discloses of a preamble containing a BW bits (Fig.7B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants submit that Rakib teaches a wireless device that can transmit and receive OTFS frames to and from another wireless device over a wireless channel using OFDM sub-carriers. However, Rakib does not contemplate a scenario in which the described wireless devices are not capable of OTFS communications, but instead presumes that the wireless devices are all capable of OTFS communications - and therefore, unlike Applicant's claim 13, there is no reason for Rakib's wireless device to determine whether or not another wireless device is capable of OTFS communications. Hence Rakib's failure to disclose "a first wireless device that determines a capability of the second wireless device to communicate according to an orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation scheme" as recited in claim 13.
Examiner submits that Rakib teaches of generating an OTFS frame for receivers that are either legacy receivers or OTFS receivers (Paragraph 0037). Therefore, Rakib teaches that when desired, the legacy type OFDM circuitry may be used to transmit legacy OFDM symbols. When it is desired to transmit OTFS type schemes, "OTFS pre-processing block" can create the more complex OTFS waveforms (waveform packets) that can then be transmitted over M narrow band subcarriers at the same frequencies and bandwidths as legacy OFDM systems (if desired), or at alternate frequencies and bandwidths also as desired. Therefore, Rakib teaches of a first wireless device that determines a capability of the second wireless device to communicate according to an orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation scheme" as recited in claim 13.
Applicants submit that none of the cited references disclose a first wireless device that transmits a frame including a preamble carrying bits indicating that the OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme wherein the bits are reserved or unused bits according to the one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards," as recited in claim 13. Examiner acknowledges that Motozuka does not actually disclose using a preamble's reserved bits or unused bits to indicate whether a wireless device is capable of OTFS communications, but instead merely states that “reserved bits may be used for another purpose when a function is added in the future.” However, using reserved or unused bits of a frame preamble to indicate that frame includes "OTFS symbols transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme" is not a function to be added in the future, as proposed by the Examiner, because the preambles of IEEE 802.11 frames already include MCS fields to indicate the modulation and coding scheme used to transmit the frames.
Examiner submits that Rakib teaches of transmitting, to the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channels, at least one frame including a preamble formatted in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards (802.11, Paragraph 0136) and one or more OTFS symbols (OTFS, Paragraph 0167, Lines 1 – 8, Fig. 18). Cordeiro teaches of modulation indication bits indicating a modulation scheme by using a modulation bitmap field 462 which by definition includes bits specifically designated to indicate a particular modulation scheme. Motozuka teaches that "reserved bits may be used for another purpose”. By definition, reserved bits are unused bits in a preamble that are set aside for future use. Therefore, since Rakib teaches of transmitting an OTFS frame including a preamble, Cordeiro teaches of modulation indication bits indicating a modulation scheme using a modulation bitmap field and Motozuka teaches of reserved bits, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modulation indication bits of Cordeiro be reserved or unused bits for allowing and providing the indication of the type of the modulation scheme as taught by Motozuka in Rakib OTFS frame.
Re claim 27, Applicants submit that claim 27 is further patentable over the cited references because claim 27 also recites that "the one or more bits indicating that the OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme are carried in one or more space time block coding (STBC) bits of a signaling (SIG) field of the preamble." This feature is not disclosed in the cited references, and therefore claim 27 is further distinguished over the cited references. Vermani does not disclose that the STBC field carries bits that indicate whether or not the wireless device is capable of OTFS communications
Examiner submits that nowhere in Applicant’s specification describes of "the one or more bits indicating that the OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme are carried in one or more space time block coding (STBC) bits of a signaling (SIG) field of the preamble." This limitation was only presented in the claims of the current application. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim limitation has been given their plain meaning which is consistent with the specification. Since the specification is silent on why the STBC bits are chosen for indicating that the OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme any control bits of the SIG field including the STBC bits can perform the claimed indication.
Cordeiro teaches of the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that the one or more symbols are transmitted according to the modulation scheme (Paragraph 0161 and #460, Fig.4). Vermani teaches of a preamble that comprises one or more bits in which includes a (STBC) bit of the SIG field (STBC, Fig.12). Since the one or more bits of Cordeiro are part of the preamble and Vermani teaches of the preamble that include an STBC bit of the SIG field. Therefore, it would only involve routine skill in the art to have the one or more bits of the preamble carried in one or more space time block coding (STBC) bits that is known to indicate whether space time block coding is enabled for the frame to further indicate control information such as the modulation scheme.
Re claim 28, Applicants submit that Vermani does not disclose that the BW field carries bits that indicate whether or not the wireless device is capable of OTFS communications (or even for some other future function or use), and the Examiner has failed to identify any language in Vermani that discloses or even suggests that "bits indicating that the OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme are carried in one or more bandwidth (BW) indication bits of a signaling (SIG) field of the preamble," as recited in claim 28.
Similar to claim 27, Examiner submits that that nowhere in Applicants specification describes of “the one or more bits indicating that the OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme are carried in one or more bandwidth (BW) indication bits of a signaling (SIG) field of the preamble.” This limitation was only presented in the claims of the current application. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim limitation has been given their plain meaning which is consistent with the specification. Since the specification is silent on why the BW indication bits are chosen for indicating that the OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme any control bits of the SIG field including the BW indication bits can perform the claimed indication.
Cordeiro teaches of the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that the one or more symbols are transmitted according to the modulation scheme (Paragraph 0161 and #460, Fig.4). Vermani teaches of a preamble that comprises one or more bits in which includes BW bits of the SIG field (STBC, Fig.12). Since the one or more bits of Cordeiro are part of the preamble and Vermani teaches of the preamble that include BW bits of the SIG field. Therefore, it would only involve routine skill in the art to have the one or more bits of the preamble carried in one or more BW bits that is known to indicate the bandwidth of the frame to further indicate control information such as the modulation scheme.
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 13 – 14, 16, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakib et al (WO2017/011455) in view of Cordeiro et al (US 2016/0323058) and further in view of Motozuka et al (US 2019/0052327).
Re claim 13, Rakib teaches of a first wireless device, comprising: a transmitter; one or more processors coupled to the transmitter; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (processor, memory, Fig.25), causes the first wireless device (OFDM backward compatible transmitter, Paragraph 0166) to: transmit, to a second wireless device over one or more wireless channels, a data transmission (OFDM backward compatible transmitter, Paragraphs 0166 – 0168) according to a conventional standard (legacy OFDM operation, Paragraph 0167, Lines 8 – 12); determine a capability of the second wireless device to communicate according to an orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation scheme (the backward compatible devices are capable for OTFS, Paragraphs 0166 – 0168, Fig.18); and transmit, to the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channels, at least one frame including a preamble formatted in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards (802.11, Paragraph 0136) and one or more OTFS symbols (OTFS, Paragraph 0167, Lines 1 – 8, Fig. 18). However, Rakib does not specifically teach of the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that the one or more OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme. Rakib does not specifically teach of wherein the one or more bits indicating that the one or more OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme are reserved or unused bits according to the one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards.
Cordeiro teaches of a first wireless device, comprising: a transceiver; one or more processors coupled to the transceiver; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (Fig.1), causes the first wireless device to: transmit, to a second wireless device data in accordance with a corresponding modulation scheme a preamble and one or more data symbols (Fig.4, Preamble and data symbols), the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that the one or more symbols are transmitted according to the modulation scheme (Paragraph 0161 and #460, Fig.4).
Motozuka teaches of one or more bits in a frame are reserved or unused bits according to the one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards. The reserved bits may be used for another purpose when a function is added in the future (Paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system be a transceiver to enable bidirectional communications and have the preamble indicate to the second wireless device that the one or more OTFS symbols have been sent in accordance with the OTFS modulation scheme so as to ensure effective compatibility between 4G and 5G systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used reserved or unused bits for allowing and supporting the indication of the type of the modulation scheme.
Re claim 14, Rakib teaches of wherein the first wireless device is a station and the second wireless device is an access point (Fig.2).
Re claim 16, Rakib teaches of wherein the one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards include at least one IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standard other than the IEEE 802.11n and 802.11ac wireless communication standards (802.11ad, Paragraph 0136).
Re claim 21, Rakib teaches of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a very high-throughput (VHT) portion of the preamble (very high-throughput, Paragraph 0020).
Re claim 24, Rakib teaches of wherein the conventional standard uses an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) scheme (OFDM, Paragraphs 0166 – 0168).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka in view of Vermani et al (US 2013/0128807).
Re claim 22, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka teach all the limitations of claim 21 except of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the VHT portion of the preamble.
Vermani teaches of one or more bits are carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the VHT portion of the preamble (Fig.12 and Paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the VHT portion of the preamble to carry control information to a receiver.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka in view of Sun et al (US 10,122,563).
Re claim 18, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka teach all the limitations of claim 13 as well as Cordeiro teaches of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a very high-throughput (VHT) portion of the preamble. However, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka do not specifically teach of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a high-throughput (HT) portion of the preamble.
Sun teaches of one or more bits of a preamble carried in a high-throughput (HT) portion of the preamble (Figures 3 – 5 and 8, Col 10, Lines 9 – 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits carried in a high-throughput (HT) portion of the preamble so as to conform to the IEEE 802.11n Standard.
Re claim 19, Rakib, Cordeiro, Motozuka and Sun teach all the limitations of claim 18 as well as Sun teaches of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the HT portion of the preamble (Figures 3 – 5 and 8, Col 10, Lines 9 – 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits are carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the HT portion of the preamble to carry control information to a receiver.
Claims 1 – 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopal et al (US 2016/0128072) in view of Rakib in view of Cordeiro and further in view of Motozuka.
Re claim 1, Rajagopal teaches of a first wireless device, comprising: a transceiver (#310, Fig.3); one or more processors coupled to the transceiver (#340, Fig.3); and a memory coupled to the one or more processors (#360, Fig.3), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the first wireless device to: receive, from a second wireless device over one or more wireless channels, a data transmission (#1552, Fig.15 and Paragraph 0108) according to a conventional standard (OFDM, Fig.15 and Paragraph 0108); determine, based on the data transmission according to the conventional standard (OFDM, Fig.15 and Paragraph 0108), a capability of the second wireless device to communicate according to a modulation scheme (capability information, Fig.15); indicate, to the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channels, a capability of the first wireless device to exchange data with the second wireless device according to the modulation scheme (capability information transmitted to eNB, Fig.15); and receive, from the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channel, at least one frame (#1562, Fig.15) including a preamble formatted in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards (Paragraphs 0048 and 0128) and one or more symbols (Fig.16). However, Rajagopal does not specifically teach of the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that one or more OTFS symbols are transmitted according to an OTFS modulation scheme. Rajagopal does not specifically teach of wherein the one or more bits indicating that the one or more OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme are reserved or unused bits according to the one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards.
Rakib teaches of a first wireless device (OFDM backward compatible transmitter, Paragraph 0166) configured to: transmit, to a second wireless device over one or more wireless channels, a data transmission (OFDM backward compatible receiver, Paragraph 0166) according to a conventional standard (legacy OFDM operation, Paragraph 0167, Lines 8 – 12); determine a capability of the second wireless device to communicate according to an orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation scheme (the backward compatible devices are capable for OTFS, Paragraphs 0166 – 0168); and transmit, to the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channels, at least one frame including a preamble formatted in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards (802.11, Paragraph 0136) and one or more OTFS symbols (OTFS, Paragraph 0167, Lines 1 – 8).
Cordeiro teaches of a first wireless device, comprising: a transceiver; one or more processors coupled to the transceiver; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (Fig.1), causes the first wireless device to: transmit, to a second wireless device data in accordance with a corresponding modulation scheme a preamble and one or more data symbols (Fig.4, Preamble and data symbols), the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that the one or more symbols are transmitted according to the modulation scheme (Paragraph 0161 and #460, Fig.4).
Motozuka teaches of one or more bits in a frame are reserved or unused bits according to the one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards. The reserved bits may be used for another purpose when a function is added in the future (Paragraph 0157).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the capability information of Rajagopal indicate OTFS for the benefit of the OTFS transmitter being capable of transmitting more data more reliably and efficiently than conventional OFDM. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the preamble indicate to the second wireless device that the one or more OTFS symbols have been sent in accordance with the OTFS modulation scheme so as to ensure effective compatibility between 4G and 5G systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used reserved or unused bits for allowing and supporting the indication of the type of the modulation scheme.
Re claim 2, Rajagopal teaches of wherein the first wireless device is a station (UE, Fig.15) and the second wireless device is an access point (eNB, Fig.15).
Re claim 11, Rajagopal teaches of wherein the conventional standard uses an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) scheme (OFDM, Figures 15 – 16).
Claims 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka in view of Vermani et al (US 2013/0128807).
Re claim 8, Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a very high-throughput (VHT) portion of the preamble.
Vermani teaches of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a very high-throughput (VHT) portion of the preamble (Figures 10 and 12 and Paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits are carried in a very high-throughput (VHT) portion of the preamble so as to conform to the 802.11 standard.
Re claim 9, Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro, Motozuka and Vermani teach all the limitations of claim 8 as well as Vermani teaches of one or more bits are carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the VHT portion of the preamble (Fig.12 and Paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the VHT portion of the preamble to carry control information to a receiver.
Claims 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka in view of Sun et al (US 10,122,563).
Re claim 5, Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka teach all the limitations of claim 1 as well as Cordeiro teaches of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a very high-throughput (VHT) portion of the preamble. However, Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka do not specifically teach of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a high-throughput (HT) portion of the preamble.
Sun teaches of one or more bits of a preamble carried in a high-throughput (HT) portion of the preamble (Figures 3 – 5 and 8, Col 10, Lines 9 – 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits carried in a high-throughput (HT) portion of the preamble so as to conform to the IEEE 802.11n Standard.
Re claim 6, Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro, Motozuka and Sun teach all the limitations of claim 5 as well as Sun teaches of wherein the one or more bits are carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the HT portion of the preamble (Figures 3 – 5 and 8, Col 10, Lines 9 – 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits are carried in a signaling (SIG) field of the HT portion of the preamble to carry control information to a receiver.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka in view of Koo et al (US 2007/0032255).
Re claim 12, Rajagopal, Rakib, Cordeiro and Motozuka teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein execution of the instructions causes the first wireless device to communicate with a third wireless device using an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) scheme while communicating with the second wireless device using the OTFS modulation scheme.
Koo teaches of execution of the instructions causes the first wireless device (#130, Fig.1) to communicate with a third wireless device (#140 or #110, Fig.1) using an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) scheme (OFDM, Fig.1 and Paragraph 0133) while (handover, Paragraph 0133 and Fig.1) communicating with the second wireless device using a different modulation scheme (Paragraph 0133).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first wireless device communicate with a third wireless device using an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) scheme while communicating with the second wireless device using the OTFS modulation scheme to enable handover to prevent communication failures.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopal, in view of Rakib in view of Cordeiro and further in view of Vermani.
Re claim 27, Rajagopal teaches of a first wireless device, comprising: a transceiver (#310, Fig.3); one or more processors coupled to the transceiver (#340, Fig.3); and a memory coupled to the one or more processors (#360, Fig.3), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the first wireless device to: receive, from a second wireless device over one or more wireless channels, a data transmission (#1552, Fig.15 and Paragraph 0108) according to a conventional standard (OFDM, Fig.15 and Paragraph 0108); determine, based on the data transmission according to the conventional standard (OFDM, Fig.15 and Paragraph 0108), a capability of the second wireless device to communicate according to a modulation scheme (capability information, Fig.15); indicate, to the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channels, a capability of the first wireless device to exchange data with the second wireless device according to the modulation scheme (capability information transmitted to eNB, Fig.15); and receive, from the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channel, at least one frame (#1562, Fig.15) including a preamble formatted in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards (Paragraphs 0048 and 0128) and one or more symbols (Fig.16). However, Rajagopal does not specifically teach of the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that one or more OTFS symbols are transmitted according to an OTFS modulation scheme. Rajagopal does not specifically teach of wherein the one or more bits are carried in one or more space time block coding (STBC) bits of the SIG field.
Rakib teaches of a first wireless device (OFDM backward compatible transmitter, Paragraph 0166) configured to: transmit, to a second wireless device over one or more wireless channels, a data transmission (OFDM backward compatible receiver, Paragraph 0166) according to a conventional standard (legacy OFDM operation, Paragraph 0167, Lines 8 – 12); determine a capability of the second wireless device to communicate according to an orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation scheme (the backward compatible devices are capable for OTFS, Paragraphs 0166 – 0168); and transmit, to the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channels, at least one frame including a preamble formatted in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards (802.11, Paragraph 0136) and one or more OTFS symbols (OTFS, Paragraph 0167, Lines 1 – 8).
Cordeiro teaches of a first wireless device, comprising: a transceiver; one or more processors coupled to the transceiver; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (Fig.1), causes the first wireless device to: transmit, to a second wireless device data in accordance with a corresponding modulation scheme a preamble and one or more data symbols (Fig.4, Preamble and data symbols), the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that the one or more symbols are transmitted according to the modulation scheme (Paragraph 0161 and #460, Fig.4).
Vermani teaches of one or more bits are carried in one or more space time block coding (STBC) bits of the SIG field (STBC, Fig.12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the capability information of Rajagopal indicate OTFS for the benefit of the OTFS transmitter being capable of transmitting more data more reliably and efficiently than conventional OFDM. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the preamble indicate to the second wireless device that the one or more OTFS symbols have been sent in accordance with the OTFS modulation scheme so as to ensure effective compatibility between 4G and 5G systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits carried in one or more space time block coding (STBC) bits of the SIG field indicate whether space time block coding is enabled for the frame.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakib in view of Cordeiro and further in view of Vermani.
Re claim 28, Rakib teaches of a first wireless device, comprising: a transmitter; one or more processors coupled to the transmitter; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (processor, memory, Fig.25), causes the first wireless device (OFDM backward compatible transmitter, Paragraph 0166) to: transmit, to a second wireless device over one or more wireless channels, a data transmission (OFDM backward compatible transmitter, Paragraphs 0166 – 0168) according to a conventional standard (legacy OFDM operation, Paragraph 0167, Lines 8 – 12); determine a capability of the second wireless device to communicate according to an orthogonal time frequency space (OTFS) modulation scheme (the backward compatible devices are capable for OTFS, Paragraphs 0166 – 0168, Fig.18); and transmit, to the second wireless device over the one or more wireless channels, at least one frame including a preamble formatted in accordance with one or more IEEE 802.11 wireless communication standards (802.11, Paragraph 0136) and one or more OTFS symbols (OTFS, Paragraph 0167, Lines 1 – 8, Fig. 18). However, Rakib does not specifically teach of the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that the one or more OTFS symbols are transmitted according to the OTFS modulation scheme. Rakib does not specifically teach of wherein the one or more bits are carried in one or more bandwidth (BW) indication bits of the SIG field.
Cordeiro teaches of a first wireless device, comprising: a transceiver; one or more processors coupled to the transceiver; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (Fig.1), causes the first wireless device to: transmit, to a second wireless device data in accordance with a corresponding modulation scheme a preamble and one or more data symbols (Fig.4, Preamble and data symbols), the preamble carrying one or more bits indicating that the one or more symbols are transmitted according to the modulation scheme (Paragraph 0161 and #460, Fig.4).
Vermani teaches of wherein the one or more bits are carried in one or more bandwidth (BW) indication bits of the SIG field (#1204, Fig.12, Paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system be a transceiver to enable bidirectional communications and have the preamble indicate to the second wireless device that the one or more OTFS symbols have been sent in accordance with the OTFS modulation scheme so as to ensure effective compatibility between 4G and 5G systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more bits carried in one or more bandwidth (BW) indication bits of the SIG field to indicate the bandwidth of the frame.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached on (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633