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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 13 February 2026, claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25 have been amended.
Claims 1-25 are now pending.
Claims 1-25 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Amendment and Remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Pan does not disclose “each of the plurality of FDM signals comprising a DFT-s-OFDM waveform that includes, as part of symbols of a DFT, a unique pre-DFT-spreading sequence associated with a respective one of a plurality of pre-DFT-spreading sequences.” Applicant further contends that Pan’s beam reference signals and predefined sequences are separate signaling constructs and are not embedded within the symbols input to the DFT spreading operation. (Rem. 10-11)
These arguments are not persuasive.
Pan discloses that a beam reference signal may be based on a predefined sequence and that a set of sequences may be used, where one of the set of sequences is selected based on beam identity or beam index (Pan ¶205). Thus Pan teaches a plurality of sequences and a unique sequence associated with a respective beam. Pan further teaches that the receiver detects the sequence used for the beam reference signal and identifies the beam index (Pan ¶205). Accordingly, Pan teaches identifying and processing signals associated with different beams based on sequences selected from a plurality of sequences.
Applicant argues that Pan does not disclose a plurality of sequences used “collectively” in the manner claimed. However, Pan explicitly discloses that a set of sequences may be used, and that a sequence is selected from the set based on beam identity or beam index (Pan ¶205). The use of a selectable set of sequences inherently provides a plurality of sequences available for association with different beams. Accordingly, Pan teaches providing a plurality of sequences and associating a respective sequence with a particular beam.
Applicant also argues that the modification proposed in the rejection would fundamentally alter the signal-generation architecture of Pan because Pan transmits the sequences as reference signals rather than embedding them within the symbols processed by the DFT spreading operation. (Rem. 11) This argument is not persuasive. Pan already teaches a DFT-s-OFDM transmitter architecture for generating beam-associated transmissions (Pan ¶202; Fig. 13) and teaches associating sequences selected from a set of sequences with respective beams (Pan ¶205). Incorporating the selected sequence within the symbol stream processed by the DFT-s-OFDM transmitter merely specifies where the already-disclosed beam-associated sequence is included within the waveform generation process and does not change the underlying transmitter architecture described by Pan.
Applicant further argues that the asserted benefits identified in the Office Action, such as flexible beam identification, orthogonality, and robustness, are merely generic goals and therefore do not provide a sufficient motivation to modify Pan. (Rem. 12) This argument is also not persuasive. The rejection does not rely solely on these benefits. Rather, Pan itself teaches selecting beam-associated sequences from a set of sequences and detecting the sequence at the receiver in order to identify the beam (Pan ¶205). Incorporating the beam-associated sequence within the waveform symbol stream of the DFT-s-OFDM transmitter represents a predictable implementation of Pan’s beam-specific sequence selection mechanism within the transmitter architecture already described by Pan.
Applicant further asserts that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (Rem. 12) However, the rejection relies on Pan’s explicit teachings that beam-associated transmissions are linked to sequences selected from a set and that receivers detect those sequences to identify beams. Implementing the selected sequence within the waveform symbol stream processed by the DFT-s-OFDM transmitter would have been a predictable implementation of these teachings and does not rely on applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, the arguments presented in the remarks do not overcome the rejection.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-6 and 8-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2020/0059398 A1), as recited in the IDS.
Pan discloses an apparatus for wireless communication including a processor and memory (Pan ¶148; Fig. 1B). Pan further discloses transmitter and receiver architectures configured to transmit and receive multi-beam DFT-s-OFDM signals (Pan ¶¶202–212; Figs. 13–15).
Pan teaches receiving, via the at least one transceiver and from a wireless communication device, an aggregated signal including a plurality of frequency division multiplexed (FDM) signals corresponding to a plurality of beams. Pan describes that “K segments of a DFT-s-OFDM symbol may be beamformed with K different beams” (Pan ¶202; Fig. 14), and that each STU may be beamformed with a unique beamforming pattern (Pan ¶212; Fig. 15). These teachings correspond to multiple simultaneously transmitted beamformed signal components that together form an aggregated multi-beam signal received by the apparatus.
Pan further teaches each of the plurality of FDM signals comprising a discrete Fourier transform (DFT)-spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-s-OFDM) waveform, since Pan explicitly describes a DFT-s-OFDM transmitter architecture used for generating the transmitted signals (Pan ¶202; Fig. 13).
Pan further teaches that each beam is associated with a sequence selected from a plurality of sequences. In particular, Pan discloses that “a beam reference signal may be based on a predefined sequence” and that “a set of sequences may be used, configured, and/or predefined.” Pan further discloses that “one of the set of sequences may be selected or determined based on a beam identity or beam index.” (Pan ¶205). Thus, Pan teaches that a plurality of sequences is provided and that a respective sequence is associated with a particular beam.
These teachings correspond to the DFT-s-OFDM waveform includes, as part of symbols of a DFT, a unique pre-DFT-spreading sequence associated with a respective one of a plurality of pre-DFT-spreading sequences, because the selected sequence associated with a beam forms part of the transmitted waveform associated with that beam in the DFT-s-OFDM transmission architecture described in Pan.
Pan further teaches decode the plurality of FDM signals based at least in part on the plurality of pre-DFT-spreading sequences, because Pan discloses that “a WTRU may detect the sequence used for the beam reference signal and identify the beam index.” (Pan ¶205). Thus, the receiver detects the sequence and identifies the corresponding beam based on that sequence, thereby identifying and processing the signals corresponding to the different beams based at least in part on the sequences associated with those beams.
To the extent Pan does not explicitly disclose that the beam-associated sequence is included within the symbols processed by the DFT spreading operation of the DFT-s-OFDM waveform, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the selected beam sequence within the symbol stream processed by the DFT-s-OFDM transmitter so that the sequence is spread and transmitted together with the waveform symbols associated with the beam. Incorporating beam-associated sequences into the waveform symbol stream represents a predictable implementation of Pan’s beam-specific sequence selection mechanism and allows the receiver to identify and separate signals corresponding to different beams based on the sequences associated with those beams.
Regarding claim 2, Pan teaches receiving, via the at least one transceiver, a sequence indication associated with the plurality of pre-DFT-spreading sequences, wherein the plurality of pre-DFT-spreading sequences are based on the sequence indication by disclosing that the sequence set, sequence configuration, and beam-identity–based mapping may be signaled to the receiving device (¶205).
Regarding claim 3, Pan teaches that the sequence indication is received via at least one of standard RRC, MAC CE, or DCI channels as these are conventional LTE/NR control mechanisms that Pan assumes as the baseline signaling framework (¶¶48–58). It would have been obvious to use standard control channels to convey sequence selection.
Regarding claim 4, Pan’s predefined sequences (¶205) include structured segments used for beam identification, which routinely include head/tail sequence elements. Using head or tail sequences for beam-associated reference signals is well-known and obvious in DFT-s-OFDM systems.
Regarding claim 5, Pan’s processing of the input vector prior to DFT spreading (¶210; Fig. 13) makes it obvious that the unique pre-DFT-spreading sequence is based on a ratio between reference portions and data portions, since such normalization is a conventional technique used in pre-DFT sequence design.
Regarding claim 6, Pan teaches determining a sequence based on one or more sequence components because Pan’s per-beam sequences come from a set of component-defined sequences (¶205). Determination based on components is inherent.
Regarding claim 7, Pan teaches time-domain filtering or separation between adjacent-beam sequences via the “zero padding” used to create isolation between STUs (¶212). Filtering out an adjacent beam’s target sequence in the time domain is a routine application of this taught isolation structure.
Regarding claim 8, Pan teaches using a reference coordinate point and Doppler information (¶¶133–134). Pan describes Doppler estimation and compensation and GNSS/geolocation-related signaling (¶¶55–57). Using these for decoding is obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Pan teaches frequency synchronization based on guard intervals in multi-beam DFT-s-OFDM structures (zero padding gaps between STUs in ¶212). Determining a target beam using synchronization derived from guard intervals is a routine application of Pan’s disclosed isolation gap structure.
Regarding claim 10, Pan’s beam footprint and beam identity signaling (¶205; ¶212) inherently support determining whether a coordinate is inside or outside a beam footprint. Applying coordinate-based footprint determination is an obvious use of Pan’s geolocation features (¶55).
Regarding claim 11, Pan teaches uplink frequency pre-compensation based on Doppler and location (¶¶133–134). Using the guard interval to perform synchronization (¶212) and determining pre-compensation values is a predictable variation.
Regarding claim 12, Pan discloses that GNSS, ephemeris, device configuration information, and other received indications (¶55) may be used for synchronization-related parameters. Determining a guard interval sequence based on configuration, indications, GNSS, or ephemeris is obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Pan discloses that the wireless communication device may include a satellite transceiver (¶57). Thus, Pan teaches non-terrestrial devices.
Regarding claim 14, Pan further discloses that the wireless device may operate with satellite components (¶57). Thus, Pan teaches satellite-associated devices.
Regarding claim 15, Pan discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless communication device including a processor and memory (¶48; Fig. 1B), complimentary to the apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), and is thus similarly rejected.
Claims 16–24 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 2–4, 8–11, and 13–14, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected. These claims mirror the same sequence-related, synchronization-related, beam-selection, and non-terrestrial-device limitations already addressed for claims 2–4, 8–11, and 13–14, differing only in that the operations are recited from the perspective of the transmitting wireless communication device rather than the receiving user equipment.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 25 recites a method corresponding directly to the apparatus of claim 1, and Pan teaches receiving multi-beam DFT-s-OFDM signals with beam-associated sequences (¶¶202–212; ¶205) and decoding based on those sequences. Therefore, claim 25 is obvious over Pan.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Blake et al. (US 2007/0217490).
Regarding claim 7, Pan teaches receiving signals corresponding to a plurality of beams and associating sequences selected from a set of sequences with respective beams (Pan ¶205). However, Pan does not explicitly disclose filter out a target sequence associated with an adjacent beam in a time domain, wherein the unique pre-DFT-spreading sequence is based on filtering out the target sequence.
Blake teaches applying time-domain filtering to OFDM signals in order to suppress interference from adjacent transmissions. In particular, Blake discloses that “the I and Q OFDM signals then have a raised cosine window 126 applied to them, which performs raised cosine filtering in order to reduce, and preferably inhibit, spectral leakage into adjacent channels.” (Blake ¶[0057]). Applying a raised cosine window to the OFDM signal samples constitutes a time-domain filtering operation that suppresses interference originating from adjacent signals.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the time-domain filtering technique taught by Blake to the multi-beam OFDM signals of Pan in order to suppress interference associated with adjacent beams and thereby improve signal detection and separation in a multi-beam communication system. Applying Blake’s time-domain filtering to Pan’s beam-associated signals would result in filtering out signal components associated with adjacent beams, thereby producing the claimed filter out a target sequence associated with an adjacent beam in a time domain, wherein the unique pre-DFT-spreading sequence is based on filtering out the target sequence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468