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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the UE of Claim 11, inclusive of its wireless transceiver and controller, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2111.04 recites the following:
“Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.”
Claims 5 and 15 recite a “wherein” clause listing variables in addition to the property that each respective variable “denotes.” However, none of the listed variables or properties are found in the respective parent Claims (1 and 11) and the variable listing does not further limit any of the steps found in the method of Claim 1 or the structure of the UE in Claim 11. As such, the Office finds that neither claim has a limiting effect on the claim language of the parent claims (refer further to the rejection of Claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) below) and are thereby not accorded patentable weight.
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 2-10 and 12-20 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 2 and 12, the claim language recites “the OFDM RS symbol is divided into Ssub subsets.” However, Claims 1 and 11, upon which these claims respectively depend, recite “a first plurality of subsets”, “a second plurality of subsets”, and “a third plurality of subsets.” It is not clear if the subsets in Claims 2 and 12 are the same as or separate from the subsets in the independent claims.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the claim language recites the claim language recites “for any subsets Yi and Yj (i (not equal to) j) of the plurality of subsets of the OFDM symbol.” However, the independent claims solely recite first, second, and third pluralities of subsets. It is therefore unclear as to which of the previously recited subsets the language “any subsets” refers. Further, the claim 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 whether the “CP time duration” relates to the CP that was removed in the independent claims. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 3 and 13.
Further regarding Claims 4 and 14, the claim language recites “wherein the extended CP is one of the following: Y1, Y1 and Y2, and Y1,Y2 and Y3.” Firstly, while Claim 3 introduces a notation for subsets of the plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol (Yi and Yj), it is not clear whether the notation for the extended CP is also representing these subsets. It is noted that the independent claims indicate that the CP removal results in a second plurality of OFDM symbols, meaning that the CP would have been present in the first plurality of symbols resulting from the IFFT and would not be present in the second or third subsets. Referring to Applicant’s specification, paragraph 0032 describes the subsets being “treated as CP” or treating CP and the listed subset combinations as extended CP. However, a “cyclic prefix” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to comprise the last portion of an OFDM symbol extracted and prepended to the beginning of the same symbol (thereby creating an extended symbol) (refer to attached “Cyclic Prefix in OFDM: Definition and Role in Wireless Communication” article). As such, based on review of the claim language, Applicant’s specification, and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, it is unclear in light of the claim language and the specification how the extended CP is the subset (or multiple subsets) of the OFDM RS symbol, particularly in light of the CP having been removed prior to the second and third plurality of subsets.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the claim language recites “a subcarrier number”, “a subcarrier numbers” and “the subcarrier numbers.” It is unclear whether these phrases pertain to the same subcarrier number or if separate subcarrier numbers are introduced throughout the claim. Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 5 and 15.
Further regarding Claims 6 and 16, the claim language recites “when no staggering.” However, while parent claims 5 and 15 recite “a staggering offset”, it is not clear that if this is related to the condition of “when no staggering”. Further, the definition of variables l and k is claimed as having several values related to the Ssub and SSym; however, it is not clear whether the variables are meant to have all of these values simultaneously or be assigned respective values dependent on a condition. Both variables are shown as values as part of side peak locations; however, it is not clear whether all values are needed to calculate the side peak locations.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the claim language recites “when the staggering offset is similar to position reference signal (PRS).” The phrase “similar to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While paragraph 0058 repeats the “similar to” language, further clarity is not provided so as to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim language. Further, claim language “the main peak” and “the supported time delay”, “the maximum time delay” lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding Claims 8-10 and 18-20, the variables m and k are claimed as having several values related to the Ssub and SSym; however, it is not clear whether the variables are meant to have all of these values simultaneously or be assigned respective values dependent on a condition. Both variables are shown as values as part of side peak locations; however, it is not clear whether all values are needed to calculate the side peak locations.
While the Office has noted certain issues with the claims, Applicant is respectfully requested to thoroughly review these claims to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, none of the listed variables or properties in Claims 5 and 15 are found in the respective parent Claims (1 and 11) and the variable listing does not further limit any of the steps found in the method of Claim 1 or the structure of the UE in Claim 11. As such, the Office finds that neither claim has a limiting effect on the claim language of the parent claims.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mioso et al (“An SDR-based Reconfigurable Multicarrier Transceiver for Terrestrial and Satellite Communications”), hereinafter Mioso, in view of Gudimitla et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2025/0219787), hereinafter Gudimitla.
Regarding Claim 1, Mioso discloses a joint sensing method for an orthogonal frequency domain multiplexing (OFDM) communication system, comprising:
performing inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) for an OFDM reference signal (RS) symbol to obtain a first plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol (Figure 2 on page 4 – SC-OFDM/SC-FDMA transmitter comprises an IFFT module; section 4.2.1 – the I-FFT module performs inverse fast fourier transform);
removing, by a receiver of the OFDM communication system, cyclic prefix (CP) of a plurality of resource elements (RE) of the OFDM RS symbol and at least one of the first plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol to obtain a second plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol (Figure 2 on page 4 – SC-OFDM/SC-FDMA receiver comprises a “CP-“ module for removing cyclic prefix as described in section 4.2.2 on page 5);
performing, by the receiver of the OFDM communication system, a phase compensation for the second plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol to obtain the third plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol (Figure 2 on page 4 – SC-OFDM/SC-FDMA receiver comprises a “S/P” module that receives the output from the “CP-“ module and performs frequency/phase aligning (i.e., compensation) as described in section 4.2.2 on page 5); and
performing, by the receiver of the OFDM communication system, fast Fourier transform (FFT) for the third plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol (Figure 2 on page 4 – SC-OFDM/SC-FDMA receiver comprises an FFT module that receives the output from the “S/P” module and applies the N-point FFT as described in section 4.2.2 on page 5).
However, Mioso does not disclose wherein the OFDM RS symbol is of a comb structure. In an analogous art, Gudimitla discloses this. Specifically, Gudimitla discloses obtaining a comb like structure for an OFDM reference signal symbol (paragraph 0225). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mioso and Gudimitla. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce RS overhead and latency and support high data rates in 6G systems (refer to paragraph 0004) of Gudimitla.
Regarding Claim 11, Mioso discloses a wireless transceiver, configured to receive a first plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol from a service network (Figure 2 on page 4 – the SC-OFDM/SC-FDMA transceiver comprises a receiver that receives OFDM symbols over a wireless network); and
a controller (Figure 2 at page 4 – baseband section), configured to remove cyclic prefix (CP) of a plurality of resource elements (RE) of an OFDM reference signal (RS) symbol and at least one of the first plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol to obtain a second plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol (Figure 2 on page 4 – SC-OFDM/SC-FDMA receiver comprises a “CP-“ module for removing cyclic prefix as described in section 4.2.2 on page 5);
to perform a phase compensation for the second plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol to obtain the third plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol (Figure 2 on page 4 – SC-OFDM/SC-FDMA receiver comprises a “S/P” module that receives the output from the “CP-“ module and performs frequency/phase aligning (i.e., compensation) as described in section 4.2.2 on page 5; and
to perform fast Fourier transform (FFT) for the third plurality of subsets of the OFDM RS symbol (Figure 2 on page 4 – SC-OFDM/SC-FDMA receiver comprises an FFT module that receives the output from the “S/P” module and applies the N-point FFT as described in section 4.2.2 on page 5).
However, Mioso does not disclose a user equipment (UE) of an orthogonal frequency domain multiplexing (OFDM) communication system or the OFDM RS symbol is of a comb structure. In an analogous art, Gudimitla discloses this. Specifically, Gudimitla discloses a UE comprising a MIMO receiver (paragraph 0240, communication system 1200 shown in Figure 12B and paragraph 0153) obtaining a comb like structure for an OFDM reference signal symbol (paragraph 0225). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mioso and Gudimitla. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce RS overhead and latency and support high data rates in 6G systems (refer to paragraph 0004) of Gudimitla.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, as noted in the Claim Interpretation section above, these claims do not further limit the claim and are thereby not accorded patentable weight. As such, Claims 5 and 15 are also unpatentable over the combination of Mioso and Gudimitla.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mioso and Gudimitla as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Werner et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0083816), hereinafter Werner. The combination of Mioso and Gudimitla discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the OFDM RS symbol is divided into Ssub subsets. In an analogous art, Werner discloses OFDM RS symbols divided between separate antenna ports (paragraph 0110). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mioso / Gudimitla with Werner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to compensate for phase error (refer to paragraph 0007 of Werner).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dai et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2025/0102654) discloses decreasing the maximum unambiguous range of a MIMO radar array (paragraphs 0133-0134);
Geng (“A Novel Waveform Design for OFDM-Based Joint Sensing and Communication System”) discloses reducing a maximum unambiguous range in a JCAS system (refer to page 2);
Wei et al (“5G PRS-Based Sensing: A Sensing Reference Signal Approach for Joint Sensing and Communication System”) discloses comb tuning in order to analyze the maximum unambiguous range (refer to page 10); and
Nuss et al (“Frequency Comb OFDM Radar System With High Range Resolution and Low Sampling Rate”) discloses MIMO capability and phase stability of comb frequencies, as well as associated impacts on unambiguous range (refer to page 3866).
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