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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 22 June 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13 and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 16-20 are amended and currently pending.
The outstanding objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Figure 1.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states “According to paragraph [0042] of the specification of the instant application, "a maximum delay" recited in original claim 3 refers to the "inter-symbol-interference-free delay", and therefore, the phrase "a maximum delay" is clearly linked to the OFDM RS symbol features recited in the operations recited in the amended claim 1.” The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first notes that Applicant has presented remarks related to the delay value itself, and not its relation to the other operations cited earlier in the claim language (i.e., IFFT, CP removal, phase compensation, or FFT). The rejection specifically indicated that an initial maximum delay is never obtained as part of these operations, so extending the maximum delay as part of the claim is unclear. Regarding Applicant’s remark that the claimed “maximum time delay” refers to the “tunable maximum time delay” in paragraph 0042, the Office also finds this position to be unpersuasive. The claim requires that the “maximum time delay” is “extended,” while this portion of the specification refers to the maximum time delay being “tunable”. The Office submits that “extending” a delay (e.g., “to add to something in order to make it bigger or longer”) and “tuning” a delay (e.g., “a tunable device is able to be changed slightly to make it work better or work in a particular way”) are not synonymous given each term’s respective plain meaning (Note: please refer to the provided definitions for both extended and tunable). Therefore, due to difference in plain meaning between the terms at issue, as well as the lack of a delay in the claim language that would be subsequently extended, the rejection of Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
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 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 16-20 are 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 Claims 1 and 11, the claim language recites “and a maximum time delay is extended according to an OFDM symbol duration and a CP time duration.” However, this phrase is not clearly linked to the OFDM RS symbol features recited earlier in the claim or the operations performed in the independent claims (i.e., IFFT, CP removal, phase compensation, or FFT). Specifically, the claim is unclear how a “maximum time delay” is obtained initially or extended. Further, it is not clear whether the “CP time duration” relates to the CP that was removed earlier in the independent claims. Claims 4, 6-10, 14, and 16-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 1 and 11.
Further regarding Claims 7 and 17, claim language “the staggering offset” lacks antecedent basis due to dependence on Claims 1 and 11, which do not provide antecedent basis for the subsequent recitations of the term.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 7 and 17 are amended to recite (emphasis added by the Office) “wherein when the staggering offset is aligned with position reference signal (PRS),” which is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. It is first noted that the specification does not contain the phrase “aligned with,” or specifically describe the staggering offset being aligned with a PRS. Paragraphs 0057 and 0058 of Applicant’s disclosure describe the following:
“[0057] … Staggering offset similar to position reference signal (PRS):
[0058] Depending on the application scenarios and choices of l, the maximum 2D unambiguous range around the main peak (0,0) may be: (FIG. 6 shows an example of maximum 2D unambiguous range)”
However, in the context of relation between a staggering offset and a PRS, there is no description of alignment between the two. Further, Figure 6 (referenced in paragraph 0058 above) is replicated below:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in the figure, which displays a reference signal pattern and plots of Doppler vs delay, the staggering offset and PRS are not displayed in relation to one another, so as to allow one skilled in the art to determine that the written description provides support for the claim language, as currently amended. Therefore, the newly added claim language constitutes new matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0239112) discloses delay and cyclic prefix structure of a reference signal (paragraph 0055).
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights