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 information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 and 12/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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: “transmitting end” recited in claims 21 and 25, and “receiving end” recited in claims 29 and 33.
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.
Paragraphs [0277]-[0278] of applicant’s specification, filed 12/15/2023 disclose that the method and/or the step implemented by the transmitting end may also be implemented by a component (for example, a chip or a circuit) that may be used by the transmitting end, and the method and/or the step implemented by the receiving end may also be implemented by a component that may be used by the receiving end, and that the transmitting end and the receiving end each may include a hardware structure and/or a software module, to implement the functions in a form of the hardware structure, the software module, or a combination of the hardware structure and the software module.
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.
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 21-24, 26, 29, 31-32, 34, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundargi et al. (US 2018/0198651 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kundargi, in view of Dutronic et al. (US 2016/0277173 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dutronic.
Regarding claim 21, Kundargi teaches a method (Kundargi – Paragraph [0014], note a method for compensation of a common phase error (CPE)), comprising:
obtaining, by a transmitting end, a first signal (Kundargi – Fig. 7; Paragraph [0041], note communication system that can transmit and receive OFDM symbols (signals), the different devices can each include a transmit path and a receive path (i.e., device capable of reception and transmission)); and
sending, by the transmitting end, the first signal (Kundargi – Fig. 7; Paragraph [0041], note communication system that can transmit and receive OFDM symbols, the different devices can each include a transmit path and a receive path),
wherein the first signal comprises a data signal and M reference signals (Kundargi – Paragraph [0031], note PN reference signals within the OFDM transmission (carrying data as conventional in the art)), and the M reference signals comprise:
M1 first imaginary reference signals or M2 first real reference signals, wherein M=M1+M2, M is an integer greater than 0, M1 is an integer greater than or equal to 0, and M2 is an integer greater than or equal to 0 (Kundargi – Paragraph [0029], note I (real) and Q (imaginary) parts of the relevant OFDM subcarriers; Paragraph [0048], note data subcarriers of an OFDM symbol (which may have a PN reference signal present, see Paragraph [0030]) that fall within four real part regions and four imaginary part regions).
Kundargi does not teach wherein the M1 first imaginary reference signals are located at a real signal location of the first signal, and wherein the M2 first real reference signals are located at an imaginary signal location of the first signal.
In an analogous art, Dutronic teaches wherein the M1 first imaginary reference signals are located at a real signal location of the first signal, and wherein the M2 first real reference signals are located at an imaginary signal location of the first signal (Dutronic – Paragraph [0232], note the baseband can be translated, i.e., shifted, to the positive frequency axis by half the bandwidth and, by doing so, the real and the imaginary signals become both real and share one and the same bandwidth (location)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dutronic into Kundargi in order to translate a baseband, allowing real and imaginary reference signals to exist on the same bandwidth, enabling the use of Hilbert transform to achieve frame synchronization (Dutronic – Paragraphs [0232]-[0236] and [0359]).
Regarding claim 22, Kundargi does not teach wherein: amplitudes of the M1 first imaginary reference signals are a first preset value; and amplitudes of the M2 first real reference signals are a second preset value.
In an analogous art, Dutronic teaches wherein: amplitudes of the M1 first imaginary reference signals are a first preset value (Dutronic – Paragraph [0253], note same energy per symbol (corresponding to real and imaginary signals on the same frequency band, see Paragraph [0252]), maximum amplitude); and
amplitudes of the M2 first real reference signals are a second preset value (Dutronic – Paragraph [0253], note same energy per symbol (corresponding to real and imaginary signals on the same frequency band, see Paragraph [0252]), maximum amplitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dutronic into Kundargi for the same reason as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kundargi and Dutronic, specifically Kundargi teaches wherein:
a polarity of the M reference signals is the same as a polarity of an interference signal to the M reference signals (Kundargi – Paragraph [0031], note PN reference signals (for phase noise estimation, see Paragraph [0029]) within the OFDM transmission; phase noise positive/negative amplitudes match that of the corresponding transmitted OFDM symbols).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kundargi and Dutronic, specifically Kundargi teaches wherein: a polarity of a first imaginary reference signal of the M1 first imaginary reference signals is the same as a polarity of an adjacent first imaginary reference signal of the M1 first imaginary reference signals (Kundargi – Fig. 10; Paragraph [0048], note subsets of data subcarriers of an OFDM symbol (which may have a PN reference signal present, see Paragraph [0030]), four imaginary part regions, CPE (common phase error) estimate for the OFDM symbol; the regions are in-phase, thus having the same positive/negative amplitudes); and
a polarity of a first real reference signal of the M2 first real reference signals is the same as a polarity of an adjacent first real reference signal of the M2 first real reference signals (Kundargi – Fig. 10; Paragraph [0048], note subsets of data subcarriers of an OFDM symbol, four real part regions, CPE (common phase error) estimate for the OFDM symbol; the regions are in-phase, thus having the same positive/negative amplitudes).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kundargi and Dutronic, specifically Kundargi teaches wherein the:
data signal comprises two real data signals and two imaginary data signals, the two real data signals are located at the real signal location, and the two imaginary data signals are located at the imaginary signal location (Kundargi – Fig. 10; Paragraph [0048], note subsets of data subcarriers of an OFDM symbol (corresponding to a data signal), four real part regions, four imaginary part regions);
the two imaginary data signals are adjacent to the M1 first imaginary reference signals and have a same amplitude and opposite polarities (Kundargi – Paragraph [0048], note the estimated angle may form the phase of a unitary amplitude complex number to be multiplied by each subcarrier of an OFDM symbol to accomplish compensation of the CPE in the OFDM symbol subcarriers (compensated or de-rotated version of equalized OFDM subcarriers, see Paragraph [0033])); and
the two real data signals are adjacent to the M2 first real reference signals and have a same amplitude and opposite polarities (Kundargi – Paragraph [0048], note the estimated angle may form the phase of a unitary amplitude complex number to be multiplied by each subcarrier of an OFDM symbol to accomplish compensation of the CPE in the OFDM symbol subcarriers (compensated or de-rotated version of equalized OFDM subcarriers, see Paragraph [0033])).
Regarding claim 29, Kundargi teaches a method (Kundargi – Paragraph [0014], note a method for compensation of a common phase error (CPE)), comprising:
obtaining, by a receiving end, a second signal (Kundargi – Fig. 7; Paragraph [0041], note communication system that can transmit and receive OFDM symbols (signals), the different devices can each include a transmit path and a receive path (i.e., device capable of reception and transmission)); and
processing, by the receiving end, the second signal to obtain a third signal, wherein the third signal comprises a data signal and M reference signals (Kundargi – Fig. 2; Paragraph [0031], note PN reference signals within the OFDM transmission (carrying data as conventional in the art); Paragraph [0032], note a time-frequency synchronization processor 202 receives incoming symbols 201 from OFDM transmissions, generate equalized OFDM subcarriers), and the M reference signals comprise:
M1 first imaginary reference signals or M2 first real reference signals, wherein M=M1+M2, M is an integer greater than 0, M1 is an integer greater than or equal to 0, and M2 is an integer greater than or equal to 0 (Kundargi – Paragraph [0029], note I (real) and Q (imaginary) parts of the relevant OFDM subcarriers; Paragraph [0048], note data subcarriers of an OFDM symbol (which may have a PN reference signal present, see Paragraph [0030]) that fall within four real part regions and four imaginary part regions).
Kundargi does not teach wherein the M1 first imaginary reference signals are located at a real signal location of the third signal, and wherein the M2 first real reference signals are located at an imaginary signal location of the third signal.
In an analogous art, Dutronic teaches wherein the M1 first imaginary reference signals are located at a real signal location of the third signal, and wherein the M2 first real reference signals are located at an imaginary signal location of the third signal (Dutronic – Paragraph [0232], note the baseband can be translated, i.e., shifted, to the positive frequency axis by half the bandwidth and, by doing so, the real and the imaginary signals become both real and share one and the same bandwidth (location)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dutronic into Kundargi in order to translate a baseband, allowing real and imaginary reference signals to exist on the same bandwidth, enabling the use of Hilbert transform to achieve frame synchronization (Dutronic – Paragraphs [0232]-[0236] and [0359]).
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected or the same reason as claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected or the same reason as claim 24 above.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is interpreted and rejected or the same reason as claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 37, Kundargi teaches a communication apparatus (Kundargi – Fig. 9; Paragraph [0047], note base station or user equipment (UE) including the CPE compensation and symbol processing described), comprising:
one or more processors (Kundargi – Fig. 9; Paragraph [0047], note one or more processors 908);
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to be executed by the one or more processors (Kundargi – Fig. 9; Paragraph [0049], note the one or more processor(s) 908 can execute instructions stored in a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium such as data storage device(s) 912), the program including instructions for:
obtaining a first signal, wherein the first signal comprises a data signal and M reference signals (Kundargi – Fig. 7; Paragraph [0031], note PN reference signals within the OFDM transmission (carrying data as conventional in the art); Paragraph [0041], note communication system that can transmit and receive OFDM symbols (signals), the different devices can each include a transmit path and a receive path (i.e., device capable of reception and transmission)), and the M reference signals comprise:
M1 first imaginary reference signals or M2 first real reference signals, wherein M=M1+M2, M is an integer greater than 0, M1 is an integer greater than or equal to 0, and M2 is an integer greater than or equal to 0 (Kundargi – Paragraph [0029], note I (real) and Q (imaginary) parts of the relevant OFDM subcarriers; Paragraph [0048], note data subcarriers of an OFDM symbol (which may have a PN reference signal present, see Paragraph [0030]) that fall within four real part regions and four imaginary part regions); and
a transceiver configured to send the first signal (Kundargi – Fig. 7; Paragraph [0041], note communication system that can transmit and receive OFDM symbols, the different devices can each include a transmit path and a receive path).
Kundargi does not teach wherein the M1 first imaginary reference signals are located at a real signal location of the first signal, and wherein the M1 first real reference signals are located at an imaginary signal location of the first signal.
In an analogous art, Dutronic teaches wherein the M1 first imaginary reference signals are located at a real signal location of the first signal, and wherein the M1 first real reference signals are located at an imaginary signal location of the first signal (Dutronic – Paragraph [0232], note the baseband can be translated, i.e., shifted, to the positive frequency axis by half the bandwidth and, by doing so, the real and the imaginary signals become both real and share one and the same bandwidth (location)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dutronic into Kundargi in order to translate a baseband, allowing real and imaginary reference signals to exist on the same bandwidth, enabling the use of Hilbert transform to achieve frame synchronization (Dutronic – Paragraphs [0232]-[0236] and [0359]).
Regarding claim 38, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 39, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 40, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 24 above.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundargi in view of Dutronic as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and further in view of Hans et al. (US 2012/0208523 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hans.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kundargi and Dutronic does not teach wherein: a polarity of the M reference signals is determined based on an identifier of a device that receives the first signal or is determined based on an identifier of the transmitting end.
In an analogous art, Hans teaches wherein:
a polarity of the M reference signals is determined based on an identifier of a device that receives the first signal or is determined based on an identifier of the transmitting end (Hans – Paragraph [0139], note a relay node may change the phase (and thus positive/negative amplitudes) of a positioning reference signal and thus in effect map its ID onto the phase of the reference signal; Paragraph [0140], note coefficient vector C representing transmitter ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hans into the combination of Kundargi and Dutronic in order to identify the sender of a reference signal based on phase shift of a reference signal to distinguish between different devices (Hans – Paragraph [0139]).
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected or the same reason as claim 25 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-28, 35-36 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s dependent claims recite wherein: interference signals of the M1 first imaginary reference signals comprise a first interference signal and a second interference signal, a sum of a value of the first interference signal and a value of the second interference signal or an amplitude of the sum is a third preset value, the first interference signal is an interference signal caused by the data signal to the M1 first imaginary reference signals, and the second interference signal is an interference signal caused by the M3 second imaginary reference signals to the M1 first imaginary reference signals; and interference signals of the M2 first real reference signals comprise a third interference signal and a fourth interference signal, a sum of a value of the third interference signal and a value of the fourth interference signal or an amplitude of the sum is a fourth preset value, the third interference signal is an interference signal caused by the data signal to the M2 first real reference signals, and the fourth interference signal is an interference signal caused by the M4 second real reference signals to the M2 first real reference signals, which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 7,515,653 B2) discloses converting passband real and imaginary signals into baseband real and imaginary signals.
Arditti Ilitzky (US 10,333,764 B1) discloses providing real component signals and imaginary component signals to pre-compensators.
Newman et al. (US 2023/0060032 A1) discloses a wireless transmitter transmitting a demodulation reference comprising a real reference signal multiplexed with an imaginary reference signal orthogonal to the real reference signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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.
/BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461