DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged. In view of Applicant’s response the requirement for restriction/election is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation “The method according to claim 7”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The method according to claim 8” i.e. because “the 2N signal combinations” required by claim 9 is recited in claim 8. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitation “The method according to claim 7”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The method according to claim 9” i.e. because “the determining the 2N signal combinations based on the 2N third signals” required by claim 10 is recited in claim 9. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites the limitation “The method according to claim 7”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The method according to claim 9” i.e. because “the obtaining the 2N-1 second signals based on the 2N signal combinations” required by claim 11 is recited in claim 9. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites the limitation “The method according to claim 7”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The method according to claim 10” i.e. because “the determining the 2N signal combinations based on the 2N sixth signals and/or 2N seventh signals” required by claim 12 is recited in claim 10. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 is a duplicate of claim 14. Therefore, since claim 15 and claim 14 are reciting the same subject matter, claim 15 should be cancelled. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites the limitation “The apparatus according to claim 13”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The apparatus according to claim 14” i.e. because “the 2N signal combinations” required by claim 16 is recited in claim 14. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the limitation “The apparatus according to claim 13”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The apparatus according to claim 16” i.e. because “the determining the 2N signal combinations based on the 2N third signals” required by claim 17 is recited in claim 16. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites the limitation “The apparatus according to claim 13”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The apparatus according to claim 16” i.e. because “the obtaining the 2N-1 second signals based on the 2N signal combinations” required by claim 18 is recited in claim 16. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites the limitation “The apparatus according to claim 13”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The apparatus according to claim 17” i.e. because “the determining the 2N signal combinations based on the 2N sixth signals and/or 2N seventh signals” required by claim 19 is recited in claim 17. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hameed et al (Performance enhancement for visible light communication based ADO-OFDM) in view of Hameed 2 et al (A novel PAPR reduction method for ADO-OFDM VLC systems).
Regarding Claim 1. Hameed discloses a signal transmission method, comprising:
obtaining 2N first signals and 2N-1 second signals (Fig 4, where a transmitter obtains 2N (1) = 2 first signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 for ACO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 3) and 2N (1)-1 = 1 second signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 for DCO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 2)), wherein each of the first signals comprises M signal points, a signal value, at an even location, of the M signal points of the first signal is 0 (Fig 4, where each of the first signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 for ACO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 3) comprises at least M (2) signal points, and a signal value, at an even location (subcarrier), of the at least M (2) signal points of the first signal (e.g. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 for ACO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 3) is 0 (as shown in Fig 4 and Fig 5)), each of the second signals comprises M signal points, a signal value, at an odd location or an even location, of the M signal points of the second signal is 0, N is a positive integer, and M is a positive even number (Fig 4, where each of the second signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 for DCO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 2) comprises at least M (2) signal points, and a signal value, at an odd location (subcarrier), of the at least M (2) signal points of the second signal (e.g. X0 to XN/2 for DCO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 2) is 0 (as shown in Fig 4 and Fig 5), wherein N (1) is a positive integer, and M (2) is a positive even number);
performing inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT), inverse Fourier transform (IFT), fast Fourier transform (FFT), or Fourier transform (FT) on the 2N first signals and the 2N-1 second signals to determine 2N third signals and 2N-1 fourth signals, wherein each of the third signals comprises M signal points, and each of the fourth signals comprises M signal points (Fig 4, where the transmitter performs inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) on the 2N (1) = 2 first signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 for ACO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 3) and the 2N (1)-1 = 1 second signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 for DCO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 2) to determine 2N (1) = 2 third signals (which corresponds to X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 as shown in Fig 3) and 2N(1)-1 =1 fourth signals (which corresponds to X0 to XN/2 as shown in Fig 2) (i.e. because an IFFT output signals in one to one correspondence with input signals) (see Linnartz et al (US Pub 20220263699) Fig 1), wherein each of the third signals (which corresponds to X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 as shown in Fig 3) comprises at least M (2) signal points, and each of the fourth signals (which corresponds to X0 to XN/2 as shown in Fig 2) comprises at least M (2) signal points); and
determining a fifth signal based on the 2N third signals and the 2N-1 fourth signals, wherein the fifth signal comprises M*2N signal points (Fig 5, where the transmitter determines a fifth signal (e.g. XADO) based on the 2N (1) = 2 third signals (which corresponds to X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 as shown in Fig 3) and the 2N(1)-1 =1 fourth signals (which corresponds to X0 to XN/2 as shown in Fig 2), wherein the fifth signal (e.g. XADO) comprises at least M (2) *2N (1) = 4 signal points).
Hameed fails to explicitly disclose sending the fifth signal.
However, Hameed 2 discloses
sending a fifth signal (Fig 3, where a transmitter end sends a fifth signal (ADO OFDM) to a receiver end).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the transmitter as described in Hameed, with the teachings of the transmitter end as described in Hameed 2. The motivation being is that as shown a transmitter end sends a fifth signal (ADO OFDM) to a receiver end and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the transmitter as described in Hameed and better show and illustrate that the transmitter sends the fifth signal (e.g. XADO) to a receiver i.e. because the transmitter in order to optimally enable a two way transmission for communications has to transmit data to a receiver and where such transmission is optimally performed using ADO OFDM which provides improved performance and efficiency and which combination is being made because both systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. transmitters, ADO OFDM…) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known transmitter end into other similar transmitter, namely, for better clarifying its operation/configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7. Hameed discloses a signal transmission method, comprising:
a fifth signal comprising M*2N signal points, wherein N is a positive integer, and M is a positive even number (Fig 5, where a receiver has a fifth signal (e.g. YADO) comprising at least M (2) *2N(1) = 4 signal points (e.g. similar to XADO), wherein N (1) is a positive integer, and M (2) is a positive even number); and
performing at least one of following operations on the fifth signal to determine 2N first signals and 2N-1 second signals (Fig 5, where the receiver performs at least one of following operations on the fifth signal (e.g. YADO) to determine 2N (1) = 2 first signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 for ACO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 3) and 2N (1)-1 = 1 second signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 for DCO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 2)), wherein each of the first signals comprises M signal points, a signal value, at an even location, of the M signal points of the first signal is 0 (Fig 5, where each of the first signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 for ACO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 3) comprises at least M (2) signal points, and a signal value, at an even location (subcarrier), of the at least M (2) signal points of the first signal (e.g. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 for ACO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 3) is 0 (as shown in Fig 4 and Fig 5)), each of the second signals comprises M signal points, a signal value, at an odd location or an even location, of the M signal points of the second signal is 0 (Fig 5, where each of the second signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 for DCO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 2) comprises at least M (2) signal points, and a signal value, at an odd location (subcarrier), of the at least M (2) signal points of the second signal (e.g. X0 to XN/2 for DCO OFDM) (as shown in Fig 2) is 0 (as shown in Fig 4 and Fig5 )), and the operations comprise:
inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT), inverse Fourier transform (IFT), fast Fourier transform (FFT), or Fourier transform (FT) (Fig 5, where the operations at the receiver comprise a fast Fourier transform (FFT)).
Hameed fails to explicitly disclose obtaining the fifth signal.
However, Hameed 2 discloses
obtaining a fifth signal (Fig 3, where a receiver end obtains a fifth signal (ADO OFDM) from a transmitter end).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the receiver as described in Hameed, with the teachings of the receiver end as described in Hameed 2. The motivation being is that as shown a receiver end obtains a fifth signal (ADO OFDM) from a transmitter end and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the receiver as described in Hameed and better show and illustrate that the receiver obtains the fifth signal (e.g. YADO) from a transmitter i.e. because the receiver in order to optimally enable a two way transmission for communications has to obtain data from a transmitter and where such transmission is optimally performed using ADO OFDM which provides improved performance and efficiency and which combination is being made because both systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. receivers, ADO OFDM…) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known receiver end into other similar receiver, namely, for better clarifying its operation/configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8. Hameed as modified by Hameed 2 also discloses the method, wherein the M*2N signal points of the fifth signal comprise 2N groups of signal points, each group of signal points comprises M signal points, and the 2N groups of signal points one-to-one correspond to the 2N first signals and 2Nsignal combinations (Hameed Fig 5, where the at least M (2) *2N(1) = 4 signal points of the fifth signal (e.g. YADO) comprise 2N(1) = 2 groups of signal points (e.g. odd subcarriers and even subcarriers), each group of signal points (e.g. odd subcarriers and even subcarriers) comprises at least M (2) signal points, and the 2N(1) = 2 groups of signal points (e.g. odd subcarriers and even subcarriers) one-to-one correspond to the 2N(1) = 2 first signals (e.g. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1) (as shown in Fig 3) and a combination of 2N(1) = 2 signals (i.e. X0 to XN/2 and X*N/2-1 to X*1 as shown in Fig 3)).
Regarding Claim 13. Claim 13 is similar to claim 7, therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 14. Claim 14 is similar to claim 8, therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 15. Claim 15 is similar to claim 8, therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-12 and 16-19 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 and if the claim objections as described above are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. 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.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 26
Prosecution Insights