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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2, this claim includes an equation comprising the variables g1, g2, …, gm. The claim language does not define the meaning of the variable g, and thus the claimed equation is indefinite. It is recommended that the claim be amended such that the meaning variable g is defined.
Regarding claim 3, this claim depends on claim 2 and thus includes the same above identified indefinite language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nuzman et al. (U.S. Publication US 2013/0215935 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Nuzman et al. discloses a communication system comprising: a transmitter and a receiver (See the abstract, paragraph 54, and paragraph 58 of Nuzman et al. for reference to a communication a system 100 including a distribution point 110 having pairs of processing devices 125 and line drivers, LD, 130 that are transceivers acting as both a transmitter and a receiver). Nuzman et al. also discloses the transmitter configured to encode binary bits of each of a plurality of data streams into a plurality of symbols and to convert the plurality of symbols into a plurality of output signals, respectively corresponding to a plurality of channels, the converting based on a transmission rule that is defined by a first matrix (See paragraphs 63-64, paragraphs 93-94, paragraph 114, and Figures 3A and 3C of Nuzman et al. for reference to encoding data bits into symbols sent as output signals via multiple channels connected to different LDs, wherein the symbols are converted via a precoder performing matrix multiplications). Nuzman et al. further discloses the receiver configured to combine the plurality of output signals, received through the plurality of channels, the combining based on a reception rule defined by a second matrix, the combining restoring the plurality of symbols, and the receiver configured to decode the plurality of symbols into the binary bits (See paragraphs 115-118 and Figure 3C of Nuzman et al. for reference to receiving upstream signals that are combined using a postcoder performing matrix multiplications as a part of a decoding process to restore the transmitted symbols). Nuzman et al. also discloses wherein the first matrix and the second matrix are determined based on a third matrix that models a crosstalk effect between adjacent channels from among the plurality of channels, to reduce the crosstalk effect (See paragraphs 149-152 and Figures 4A and 4B of Nuzman et al. for reference to the precoder and postcoder matrices being determined based on estimation of crosstalk between the line drivers using a crosstalk matrix).
With respect to claim 18, Nuzman et al. discloses wherein the transmitter and the receiver are included in a single transceiver (See paragraph 54, paragraph 58, and Figures 1 and 3A of Nuzman et al. for reference to the processing devices 125 and LDs 130 that form the transmitter and receiver being part of a transceiver).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuzman et al. in view of Schwager et al. (U.S. Publication US 2007/0268989 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Nuzman et al. does not specifically disclose wherein a sum of voltage levels of the plurality of output signals remains constant over time. However, Schwager et al., in the field of communications, discloses using twisted pair wires carrying a signal and an inverse of the signal so that the sum of voltages on the wires is always assumed to be constant (See paragraph 2 of Schwager et al.). Schwager et al. discloses that transmitting a signal with a constant voltage allows the receiver to ignore the wires’ voltage with respect to ground and small changes in ground potential between transmitter and receiver do not affect the receiver’s ability to detect the signal. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Schwager et al., to combine transmitting a signal with a constant voltage, as suggested by Schwager et al., within the system and method of Nuzman et al., with the motivation being to allow the receiver to ignore the wires’ voltage with respect to ground such that small changes in ground potential between transmitter and receiver do not affect the receiver’s ability to detect the signal.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuzman et al. in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2006/0114982 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Nuzman et al. discloses wherein row vectors of the second matrix correspond to the plurality of symbols, respectively (See paragraphs 115-119 and Figure 3C of Nuzman et al. for reference to time domain, i.e. row, vectors of the postcoder matrix corresponding to the plurality of output symbols). Nuzman et al. does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of symbols is restored based on an inner product of a row vector corresponding to a symbol from among the row vectors of the second matrix, and a column vector comprising the received plurality of output signals. However, Liu et al., in the field of communications, discloses a decoding technique that generates a projected received signal equal to the inner product of a projection vector and projected error signal (See paragraph 34 of Liu et al.). Decoding using an inner product as taught by Liu et al. has the advantage of filtering certain kinds of noise or interference (See paragraph 34 of Liu et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Liu et al., to combine decoding using an inner product, as suggested by Liu et al., within the system and method of Nuzman et al., with the motivation being to filter certain kinds of noise or interference.
With respect to claim 14, Nuzman et al. discloses wherein the receiver comprises a combiner configured to combine at least a portion of the plurality of received output signals (See paragraphs 115-118 of Nuzman et al. for reference to the receiver including a postcoder, which acts as a combiner). Nuzman et al. also discloses an output signal, input to the combiner, is determined based on elements of a row vector corresponding to a symbol from among the row vectors of the second matrix (See paragraphs 115-119 of Nuzman et al. for reference to time domain, i.e. row, vectors of the postcoder matrix corresponding to the plurality of output symbols that are postcoded according to a postcoding matrix). Nuzman et al. does not specifically disclose the combiner configured to perform an operation corresponding to the inner product, for each of the plurality of symbols. However, Liu et al., in the field of communications, discloses a decoding technique that generates a projected received signal equal to the inner product of a projection vector and projected error signal (See paragraph 34 of Liu et al.). Decoding using an inner product as taught by Liu et al. has the advantage of filtering certain kinds of noise or interference (See paragraph 34 of Liu et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Liu et al., to combine decoding using an inner product, as suggested by Liu et al., within the system and method of Nuzman et al., with the motivation being to filter certain kinds of noise or interference.
With respect to claim 15, Nuzman et al. discloses wherein the receiver comprises a sampler and a decoder corresponding to the combiner, the sampler is configured to generate a plurality of sampling signals based on a symbol level of a symbol restored in the combiner, and the decoder is configured to obtain binary bits, corresponding to the restored symbol, based on the plurality of sampling signals (See paragraphs 117-118 and Figure 3C of Nuzman et al. for reference to the receiver comprising IFTT units, which are samplers, and parallel-to-serial units, which are decoders that take the output of the postcoder and restore the transmitted symbols to determine the original data bits).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuzman et al. in view of Liu et al., and in further view of Iscan et al. (U.S. Publication US 2022/0263694 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Nuzman et al. discloses the decoder is configured to obtain binary bits, corresponding to the restored symbol, based on an inverse rule of the encoding rule (See paragraphs 117-118 and Figure 3C of Nuzman et al. for reference to the IFFT and P2S decoding the signal in an inverse manner to the encoding process). Nuzman et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the transmitter is configured to encode binary bits into a symbol based on an encoding rule defined to reduce error bits caused by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). However, Iscan et al., in the field of communications, discloses bit-level encoding of bits into symbols in a manner that significantly reduces AWGN (See paragraphs 80-82 of Iscan et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Iscan et al., to combine bit-level encoding of bits into symbols, as suggested by Iscan et al., within the system and method of Nuzman et al., with the motivation being to significantly reduce AWGN.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuzman et al. in view of Iscan et al.
With respect to claim 19, Nuzman et al. discloses a transmitter comprising: a plurality of encoders and a plurality of drivers (See the abstract, paragraph 54, paragraph 58, and Figure 1 of Nuzman et al. for reference to a distribution point 110 having processing devices 125, which are a plurality of encoders, and line drivers, LD, 130, which combine to act as a transceiver that has the function of a transmitter). Nuzman et al. also discloses the plurality of encoders each configured to generate control signals for converting binary data of input data streams from among n data streams into symbol data (See paragraphs 110-114 and Figure 3C of Nuzman et al. for reference to processing devices generating time domain symbol samples corresponding to bits of a number of input streams). Nuzman et al. further discloses the plurality of drivers configured to generate the symbol data based on the control signals, the plurality of drivers configured to transmit an output signal based on the generated symbol data through n+1 channels, based on a transmission rule defined by an encoding matrix (See paragraph 79, paragraphs 110-114, and Figures 2 and 3C of Nuzman et al. for reference to using a precoder matrix to generate a number of output signals transmitted through corresponding number of LDs connected to output channels). Nuzman et al. also discloses wherein the encoding matrix is an (n+1)×n-dimensional matrix determined based on a matrix that models a crosstalk effect between adjacent channels of the n+1 channels, to reduce the crosstalk effect (See paragraphs 149-152 and Figures 4A and 4B of Nuzman et al. for reference to the precoder matrix being determined based on estimation of crosstalk between the line drivers using a crosstalk matrix). Nuzman et al. does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of encoders is configured to generate the control signals based on an encoding rule defined to reduce decoding errors caused by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). However, Iscan et al., in the field of communications, discloses bit-level encoding of bits into symbols in a manner that significantly reduces AWGN (See paragraphs 80-82 of Iscan et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Iscan et al., to combine bit-level encoding of bits into symbols, as suggested by Iscan et al., within the system and method of Nuzman et al., with the motivation being to significantly reduce AWGN.
With respect to claim 20, Nuzman et al. discloses a receiver comprising: a plurality of combiners and a plurality of decoders (See the abstract, paragraph 54, paragraph 58, and Figures 1 and 3A of Nuzman et al. for reference to a distribution point 110 having processing devices 125, which are a plurality of decoders, and a time domain vector processor 327, which acts as a plurality of combiners, and together to act as a transceiver that has the function of a receiver). Nuzman et al. also discloses the plurality of decoders configured to obtain n pieces of binary data based on the restored n symbols configured to combine n+1 output signals received through n+1 channels based on a reception rule defined by a decoding matrix, and the plurality of combiners configured to restore n symbols from the combined n+1 output signals (See paragraphs 115-118 and Figure 3C of Nuzman et al. for reference to receiving upstream signals that are combined using a postcoder performing matrix multiplications as a part of a decoding process to restore a number transmitted symbols). Nuzman et al. further discloses wherein the decoding matrix is an n×(n+1)-dimensional matrix determined based on a matrix that models a crosstalk effect between adjacent channels of the n+1 channels, to reduce crosstalk effect (See paragraphs 149-152 and Figures 4A and 4B of Nuzman et al. for reference to the postcoder matrix being determined based on estimation of crosstalk between the line drivers using a crosstalk matrix). Nuzman et al. does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of decoders is configured to obtain the binary data based on an inverse rule of an encoding rule defined to reduce decoding errors caused by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). However, Iscan et al., in the field of communications, discloses bit-level encoding of bits into symbols in a manner that significantly reduces AWGN (See paragraphs 80-82 of Iscan et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Iscan et al., to combine bit-level encoding of bits into symbols, as suggested by Iscan et al., within the system and method of Nuzman et al., with the motivation being to significantly reduce AWGN.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-11 and 17 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:
Claim 2 would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the specific equation used to determine the first and second matrix as defined by the limitations of this claim.
Claim 3 would be allowable since it depends on an further defines the subject matter of allowable claim 3.
Claim 4 would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claim limitations requiring “each of the plurality of output signals has a voltage level based on an inner product of a row vector corresponding to a channel from among the row vectors of the first matrix, and a column vector comprising the plurality of symbols”.
Claims 5-11 would be allowable since they each depend on and further define the subject matter of allowable claim 4.
Claim 17 would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claim limitations requiring “each of the plurality of symbols is a ternary symbol of 2 unit intervals (UI), the sampler is configured to generate the plurality of sampling signals based on symbol levels of a ternary symbol of 2UI restored in the combiner, and the decoder is configured to obtain three binary bits corresponding to the ternary symbol of 2UI based on the plurality of sampling signals”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cronie (U.S. Patent US 9,160,406 B2), Zhang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0138208 A1), Graber et al. (U.S. Publication US 2019/0312715 A1), Fonseka et al. (U.S. Publication US 2016/0352419 A1), Lu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2016/0173682 A1), and Hadani et al. (U.S. Publication US 2014/0161154 A1) each disclose relevant systems and methods of encoding and decoding signals in a manner to reduce crosstalk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461