risDETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed November 19th 2025, the following has occurred: claim 1 has been amended; claims 9-10 are new; claims 1-10 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the delay amount". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, makes no recitation of a “delay amount”, so it is unclear what quantity “the delay amount” is referring to. Therefore claim 10 is unclear and thus indefinite. It is the examiner’s interpretation that “the delay amount” corresponds to a delay amount to be implemented by the communication apparatus based on the determined doppler shift amount.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet et al. ( "Time-variant acoustic propagation characterization in seaport deployments." 2015 IEEE 28th Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE). IEEE, 2015., “Bousquet”) in view of Zhou et al. (US 20090129204 A1, “Zhou”) and Liu et al. ("An adaptive multi-mode underwater acoustic communication system using OSDM and direct sequence spread spectrum modulation." IEEE Access 9 (2021): 56277-56291., “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Bousquet discloses a communication apparatus comprising: a synchronizer configured to perform synchronization processing according to a Doppler shift on a reception signal([pg. 3] signal received by the hydrophone is synchronized using a sliding window correlator that performs symbol level synchronization between the received signal and a known preamble)([pg. 4], doppler shift is measured for each deployment); and an equalizer configured to perform equalization processing on a reception signal on which the synchronization processing has been performed([pg. 3], feedback equalizer relies on feedforward equalizers where the equalizer relies on previously detected symbol decisions).
Bousquet may not explicitly teach wherein the synchronizer includes a correlator configured to output a correlation between a reception signal and a known preamble sequence and a correlation between the reception signal and a known postamble sequence, a slide correlator configured to output a sliding correlation based on a correlation between a preamble sequence extracted from head of the reception signal and a known preamble sequence and a correlation between a postamble sequence extracted from end of the reception signal and a known postamble sequence output by the correlator, and a Doppler estimator configured to estimate a Doppler shift based on the sliding correlation of the slide correlator.
Zhou teaches wherein the synchronizer includes a correlator configured to output a correlation between a reception signal and a known preamble sequence and a correlation between the reception signal and a known postamble sequence. ([0077], coarse estimation of doppler scale is based on preamble and postamble of the data packet. Cross correlating the received signal with the known preamble and postamble, the receiver estimates the time duration of the packet)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic communications, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bousquet to include the preamble and postamble correlation of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the time duration of the data packet [0077].
Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou may not explicitly teach a slide correlator configured to output a sliding correlation based on a correlation between a preamble sequence extracted from head of the reception signal and a known preamble sequence and a correlation between a postamble sequence extracted from end of the reception signal and a known postamble sequence output by the correlator, and a Doppler estimator configured to estimate a Doppler shift based on the sliding correlation of the slide correlator.
Liu teaches a slide correlator configured to output a slide correlator configured to output a sliding correlation based on a correlation between a preamble sequence extracted from head of the reception signal and a known preamble sequence and a correlation between a postamble sequence extracted from end of the reception signal and a known postamble sequence output by the correlator, and a Doppler estimator configured to estimate a Doppler shift based on the sliding correlation of the slide correlator.([pg. 4], sliding correlation is performed at the receiver end between the training sequence and the received signal. When synchronization is completed, doppler factor is estimated by sliding cross correlation between the training sequence intercepted from the received signal and the received signal)([pg. 5], PN sequences in the head and tail of the data frame are used to estimate the doppler factor, which are then used to generate correlation peaks from which doppler effect can be estimated)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the preamble would implicitly extracted from the head of the reception signal and the postamble would implicitly be extracted from the tail of the reception signal)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic communications, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou, to include the slide correlator of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of compensating for the relative motion between the transmitter and receiver [pg. 7].
Regarding claim 7, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Liu further teaches the slide correlator outputs a slide correlation between a direct wave and a multipath wave in a delay profile estimated from a preamble sequence and a direct wave and a multipath wave in a delay profile estimated from a postamble sequence .([pg. 4], sliding correlation is performed at the receiver end between the training sequence and the received signal. When synchronization is completed, doppler factor is estimated by sliding cross correlation between the training sequence intercepted from the received signal and the received signal)([pg. 5], PN sequences in the head and tail of the data frame are used to estimate the doppler factor, which are then used to generate correlation peaks from which doppler effect can be estimated) (Fig. 8, [pg. 9], channel delays are profiled with channel 1 containing 5 paths including 1 direct path and the maximum excess delay time is calculated at 7ms)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the delay profiles would implicitly be generated as a result of the sliding correlation operation).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet in view of Zhou, Liu, and Oishi et al. (US 20210243054 A1, “Oishi”).
Regarding claim 2, Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu may not explicitly teach wherein the slide correlator outputs a sliding correlation based on only amplitude information of an output of the correlator.
Oishi teaches wherein the slide correlator outputs a sliding correlation based on only amplitude information of an output of the correlator. ([0057], correlator may be a sliding correlation and the correlation value may be an amplitude of a complex number)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic communications, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu, to include the amplitude based slide correlation of Oishi with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining a degree of correlation between the transmitted and received signal [0057].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet in view of Zhou, Liu, and Hellfajer et al. (US 20210099329 A1, “Hellfajer”).
Regarding claim 3, Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu may not explicitly teach wherein the correlator and the slide correlator use a fast Fourier transform (FFT) for calculation of cross-correlation.
Hellfajer teaches wherein the correlator and the slide correlator use a fast Fourier transform (FFT) for calculation of cross-correlation.([0185], cross correlation may be performed by converting time domain signals into the frequency domain using an FFT)([0196],correlator may utilize sliding correlation, as cross correlations are a type of sliding window operation)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic communications, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu, to include the FFT correlation of Hellfajer with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining a degree of correlation between the transmitted and received signal in the frequency domain [0185].
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 4, Bousquet discloses a communication apparatus comprising: a synchronizer configured to perform synchronization processing according to a Doppler shift on a reception signal([pg. 3] signal received by the hydrophone is synchronized using a sliding window correlator that performs symbol level synchronization between the received signal and a known preamble); and an equalizer configured to perform equalization processing on a reception signal on which the synchronization processing has been performed([pg. 3], feedback equalizer relies on feedforward equalizers where the equalizer relies on previously detected symbol decisions),
Bousquet may not explicitly teach wherein the synchronizer includes a synthetic correlator configured to calculate a first cross-correlation between the reception signal and a known preamble sequence and a second cross-correlation between the reception signal and a known postamble sequence, and outputs a sliding correlation between the first cross-correlation and the second cross-correlation, and a Doppler estimator configured to estimate a Doppler shift based on the sliding correlation of the synthetic correlator.
Liu teaches wherein the synchronizer includes a synthetic correlator configured to calculate a first cross-correlation between the reception signal and a known preamble sequence and a second cross-correlation between the reception signal and a known postamble sequence, and outputs a sliding correlation between the first cross-correlation and the second cross-correlation, and a Doppler estimator configured to estimate a Doppler shift based on the sliding correlation of the synthetic correlator.([pg. 4], sliding correlation is performed at the receiver end between the training sequence and the received signal. When synchronization is completed, doppler factor is estimated by sliding cross correlation between the training sequence intercepted from the received signal and the received signal)([pg. 5], PN sequences in the head and tail of the data frame are used to estimate the doppler factor, which are then used to generate correlation peaks from which doppler effect can be estimated)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the head and tail of the data corresponds to a preamble and a postamble)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the correlations are performed using a training sequence, as opposed to real data, the correlator is using synthetic correlations)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic communications, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bousquet, to include the slide correlator of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of compensating for the relative motion between the transmitter and receiver [pg. 7].
Regarding claim 8, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet in view of Liu and Oishi.
Regarding claim 5, Bousquet, as modified in view of Liu teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 4. Bousquet, as modified in view of Liu may not explicitly teach wherein the synthetic correlator estimates the sliding correlation based on an amplitude value of a correlation between the preamble sequence and the reception signal and an amplitude value of a correlation between the postamble sequence and the reception signal.
Oishi teaches wherein the synthetic correlator estimates the sliding correlation based on an amplitude value of a correlation between the preamble sequence and the reception signal and an amplitude value of a correlation between the postamble sequence and the reception signal. ([0057], correlator may be a sliding correlation and the correlation value may be an amplitude of a complex number)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic communications, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bousquet, as modified in view of Liu, to include the amplitude based slide correlation of Oishi with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining a degree of correlation between the transmitted and received signal [0057].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet in view of Liu and Hellfajer.
Regarding claim 6, Bousquet, as modified in view of Liu, teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the synthetic correlator uses an FFT for calculation of cross-correlation.
Hellfajer teaches the synthetic correlator uses an FFT for calculation of cross-correlation. ([0185], cross correlation may be performed by converting time domain signals into the frequency domain using an FFT)([0196],correlator may utilize sliding correlation, as cross correlations are a type of sliding window operation)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic communications, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bousquet, as modified in view of Liu, to include the FFT correlation of Hellfajer with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining a degree of correlation between the transmitted and received signal in the frequency domain [0185].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 is 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:
Regarding claim 10, Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1. Bousquet, as modified in view of Zhou and Liu may not explicitly teach the delay amount output from the correlator to the slide correlator is calculated based on a waveform compression amount corresponding to a maximum assumed Doppler frequency.
Tadayon et al. ("Frequency offset compensation for acoustic OFDM systems." OCEANS 2017-Anchorage. IEEE, 2017., “Tadayon”) teaches the delay amount output from the correlator to the slide correlator is calculated based on a waveform compression amount corresponding to a maximum assumed Doppler frequency ([pg. 2], frame synchronization is performed based on the calculated amount of time compression derived from the correlated received preamble and postamble sequences. After frame synchronization, initial resampling and down-shifting by the lowest carrier frequency allows modeling the received signal of the mth receiving element. Model (5) captures the rough frequency shifting and serves as a starting point in determining frequency offset compensation, however Tadayon, nor any other identified prior art teaches the compression determination is carried out corresponding to a maximum assumed Doppler frequency)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 1 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Bousquet in ivew of Zhou and Liu fails to teach the limiations of claim 1 for the following reasons:
Zhou fails to teach the sliding correlator outputting a sliding correlation based on a correlation between a preamble sequence and postamble sequence with a known preamble and postamble
Zhou fails to teach the correlator generating a correlation output between a known preamble and postamble with measured preamble and postamble in the head and tail of the reception signal
With respect to (1), the examiner agrees that Zhou does not teach a sliding correlator that outputs a sliding correlation, however Zhou is not relied upon to teach that limitation. Liu teaches the outputting of a sliding correlation via a sliding correlator at [pg. 4] which states that a sliding correlator is used to perform a sliding correlation between a training sequence (known) and the received sequence. Based on this sliding correlation, the doppler factor may then be estimated. Liu further teaches at [pg. 5] that PN sequences at the head and tail of the received data sequences are correlated to then estimate the doppler factor).
With respect to (2) the examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhou at [0077] teaches that coarse estimation of the doppler scale is based on preamble and postamble by cross correlating it with a known preamble and postamble. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the preamble and postamble would each implicitly be in the head and tail of the reception signal, respectively, and the correlation performed would be equivalent to that of the limitations of amended claim 1. Therefore the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Zhou et al. (US 20110013487 A1, “Zhou 2”) which discloses an apparatus and method for underwater acoustic communications
Ouchi et al. (US 20140133599 A1, “Ouchi”) which discloses a transmission and reception device using synchronization based on known preambles and postambles
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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645