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/Arguments
With the reply filed 12/30/25, claim 1 has been amended to include some limitations from claim 7, previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter, and claims 12, 23 and 27 have been similarly amended. However, the amendment incorporating only some limitations of claims previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter creates claims differing in scope from any claim previously examined, and the limitations included in the amended independent claims are still considered to be taught by the cited prior art reference to Lee, as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include all “means” limitations recited in claims 27-30. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 20-23, 26, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0158755.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 23 and 27, Lee discloses a wireless device performing a method of wireless communication, the wireless device comprising a memory (i.e. 230 – Fig. 2), storing instructions which are executed by one or more processors (i.e. 225), cause the device to perform the method, comprising: transmitting an OFDM signal on K subsets of N subcarriers, wherein the signal includes a sequence of modulated symbols for each subset, the sequence of modulated symbols distinct for each subset (see abstract; ¶¶ [0006], [0088]; Fig. 9); receiving a reflected OFDM signal that corresponds to the OFDM signal (¶ [0121]); processing the reflected signal with K mixers (see Fig. 11), where mixer frequencies for the K mixers are separated by N subcarriers spacing (¶ [0072]), to form K portions of a range spectrum from the reflected OFDM signal; wherein processing the reflected OFDM signal includes: down-converting the reflected OFDM signal to form at least one down-converted waveform, as mixers downconvert a received signal from the antenna produce I and Q signals (see Fig. 11, also see ¶ [0049]); and low-pass filtering the at least one down-converted waveform via low-pass filter 1114 (Fig. 11, ¶ [0096]); and combining the K portions to form the range spectrum in combiner 1115 (Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Lee discloses that each sequence is based on a Zadoff-Chu sequence (¶ [0067]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Lee discloses that the sequences may be generated from different root Zadoff-Chu sequences (¶ [0067]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Lee discloses that each of the modulated symbols is based on a distinct cyclic shifted version of a baseline Zadoff-Chu sequence (¶ [0069]).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Lee discloses that processing the reflected OFDM signal includes converting the reflected OFDM signal to a digital signal via ADC 1104 with a sampling rate that is based at least in part on the N subcarriers in order to properly sample the signal for provision to the subsequent processing (¶¶ [0088], [0098]; Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Lee discloses that the OFDM signal is transmitted over symbols in a bandwidth of non-overlapping subcarriers (Fig. 8), which may be considered to be transmitted in the bandwidth as defined in the claims.
Regarding claims 11, 22, 26 and 30, Lee discloses that processing the reflected OFDM signal includes conjugate-multiplying for reach of the K sequences via blocks 1108 and 1118.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of CATT (R1-1700234) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Lee discloses a wireless device and associated method for wireless communication, as described above, but does not expressly disclose that each sequence of modulated symbols includes comb-mapped symbols.
CATT discloses a comb structure for mapped symbols (see section 2.5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use comb-mapped symbols as suggested by CATT, in the wireless device and method of Lee, as it is a known technique for providing signals using Zadoff-Chu sequences.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ghozlan et al. U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0385035.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Lee discloses a wireless device and associated method for wireless communication, as described above, where the Zadoff-Chu sequences is described in para. 0069, but do not expressly state that NZC is a greatest prime number less than or equal to N, with unique roots.
Ghozlan discloses ZC sequence embodiments where the length NZC is a largest prime number that is less than or equal to a minimum system bandwidth (¶ [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ ZC sequences associated with length NZC, as suggested by Ghozlan, in the device and method of Lee, in order to comply with the 3GPP standard (see ¶ [0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 18, 19, 24, 25, 28 and 29 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.
Conclusion
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 David B. Lugo whose telephone number is 571-272-3043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DAVID B LUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
4/4/2026
Prosecution Insights