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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of TR2021/019525 filed 12/09/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “defining the pilot ratio at the beginning” in line 5, but there is no comma or semicolon at the end of line 5 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “pilots”. The examiner suggests to specify if “pilots” is signal, symbol or tone.
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 1-2 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.
Claim 1 recites “the transmitter” in line 4 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the pilot ratio” in line 5 of claim 1. It is not clear what is “pilot ratio”. The specification of the instant application merely recites “defining the pilot ratio”, but is moot in describing what the pilot ratio is. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 1 recites “defining the pilot ratio at the beginning: in line 5 of claim 5. It is not clear what is “at the beginning”. i.e. is the beginning of waveform generation, or beginning of something else, or it is a first step. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 1 recites “the receiver” in line 10 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “estimation and detection at the receiver.” It is not clear what is estimated and detected at the receiver, i.e. it is not understood if target attributes, or waveform attributes, parameter related to channel estimation or something else is estimated and detected at the receiver. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore is also rejected.
Claim 2 recites “the received pilots’ values.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A method for designing pilots inserted within orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) waveform intended for channel estimation, the method comprises comprising the steps of:
waveform generation at the transmitter is carried out by: defining the pilot ratio at the beginning choosing the pilots in time-frequency that are equally spaced in frequency and shifting at each time slot;
choosing the pilots' complex values to provide localization of the representation in the delay-Doppler domain; and
estimation and detection at the receiver.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a apparatus including at least one structure. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of waveform generation is carried out by: defining the pilot ratio at the beginning choosing the pilots in time-frequency that are equally spaced in frequency and shifting at each time slot; choosing the pilots' complex values to provide localization of the representation in the delay-Doppler domain; estimation and detection.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to estimate.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of waveform generation at the transmitter; estimation and detection at the receiver.
The generation of waveform and estimation and detection are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “generation of waveform” and “estimation and detection” at the transmitter and receiver respectively, shows how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the invention is designing pilots inserted into orthogonal frequency division multiplexing waveform intended for channel estimation, and the specification does not provide any indication that the design is performed to facilitate for radar and communication application, but the specification does not describe any hardware on which the design can be implemented by. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 2 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-2 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shental et al. (US 2011/0261905 A1), and further in view of Lin (US 2024/0235915 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shental et al. (‘905) discloses “a method for designing pilots inserted within orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) waveform intended for channel estimation (paragraph 4: a method for receiving a wireless Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) signal includes obtaining a channel estimate using compressed sensing channel estimation… in the method obtaining a channel estimate using compressed sensing channel estimation may include obtaining pilot signal),
the method comprising the steps of: waveform generation (paragraph 35: an OFDM system may have K subcarriers transmitting a block of L symbols) at the transmitter is carried out by: defining the pilot ratio at the beginning (paragraph 68: Figure 5: scattered pilots are transmitted according to the staggering scheme)
choosing the pilots in time-frequency (paragraph 33: the channel estimation problem can be reformulated as reconstructing a sparse signal in the delay-Doppler domain from given measurements taken from a partial set of pilots in the time-frequency domain);
choosing the pilots' complex values to provide localization of the representation in the delay-Doppler domain; and estimation and detection at the receiver (paragraph 3: in the method obtaining a channel estimate using compressed sensing channel estimation may include obtaining pilot signals
PNG
media_image1.png
28
24
media_image1.png
Greyscale
from the channel using a least-squares estimator, and using the obtained pilot signals to recover a delay-Doppler domain channel vector
PNG
media_image2.png
24
18
media_image2.png
Greyscale
by solving the following optimization problem
PNG
media_image3.png
28
206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; paragraph 6: the receiver circuit may further include means for reassigning the recovered delay-Doppler domain channel vector
PNG
media_image4.png
24
18
media_image4.png
Greyscale
into a cross-domain relation to reveal channel estimate tap locations; paragraph 38: the m'th tap,
PNG
media_image5.png
30
38
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, may vary rapidly in time (i.e., within symbol period) due to Doppler spreads…the noiseless K-length received signal vector in the symbol-frequency domain,
PNG
media_image6.png
24
254
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, at the output of the discrete Fourier transform (DFT), is
PNG
media_image7.png
52
280
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where the function
PNG
media_image8.png
28
36
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, removing the effect of CP, gives 1 on [N-K, N-1] and 0 otherwise; paragraph 22: channel estimation methods for OFDM communication systems based on the theory of compressed sensing (CS)…compressed sensing enables the reconstruction of sparse signals from incomplete sets of measurements…the analysis of OFDM signals is shifted from the conventional dense time-frequency domain to the sparse delay-Doppler domain in order to represent the OFDM channel as an approximately sparse signal…this method of analysis enables utilization of compressed sensing to accomplish the challenging estimation of OFDM channels in the presence of fast frequency-selective fading).”
Shental et al. (‘905) does not explicitly disclose choosing the pilots in time-frequency “that are equally spaced in frequency and shifting at each time slot.”
Lin (‘915) relates to a transmitter, a transmission method, a receiver, and a reception method. Lin (‘915) teaches choosing the pilots in time-frequency “that are equally spaced in frequency and shifting at each time slot (paragraph 114: a pilot symbol is a non-zero known value symbol used in propagation path estimation …the pilot symbol is arranged at a delay position M−L…although only one pilot symbol is shown in Figure 18, a plurality of pilot symbols may be included within one frame…a plurality of pilot symbols may be arranged at intervals in the Doppler shift axis direction; paragraph 102: the frame generation unit 702 generates a frame by arranging a symbol sequence obtained by adding known value symbols such as a pilot symbols to the data symbol sequence generated by the modulation unit 701 in a delay-Doppler shift domain (a delay-Doppler domain) …this frame has M symbols in the direction of the delay axis (delay direction) and has in each of which N symbols in the direction of the Doppler shift axis (delay direction)…a symbol of a delay position m and a Doppler shift position (Doppler position) n constituting the frame is denoted by x[m, n]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shental et al. (‘905) with the teaching of Lin (‘915) for improved channel or propagation path estimation (Lin (‘915) – paragraph 115). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Shental et al. (‘905) and Lin (‘915)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmission and reception using pilots in frequency division multiplexing signal.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Shental et al. (‘905)/Lin (‘915) discloses the method of claim 1. Shental et al. (‘905) does not explicitly disclose “the estimation and detection at the receiver comprises transforming the received pilots' values to delay-Doppler domain where every reflection from the environment is seen as tap with a specific power, delay shift, and Doppler shift.”
Lin (‘915) relates to a transmitter, a transmission method, a receiver, and a reception method. Lin (‘915) teaches “the estimation and detection at the receiver comprises transforming the received pilots' values to delay-Doppler domain where every reflection from the environment is seen as tap with a specific power, delay shift, and Doppler shift (paragraph 129: the propagation path estimation unit 804 detects a pilot symbol from the symbol sequence
PNG
media_image9.png
20
136
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and performs propagation path estimation…the propagation path estimation unit 804 detects a pilot symbol in a propagation path estimation region shown in FIG. 18. Here, the pilot symbol detection result (gain) at each position (k, l) of the propagation path estimation region in the propagation path estimation unit 804 is denoted by
PNG
media_image10.png
22
46
media_image10.png
Greyscale
…k denotes a Doppler shift position and takes values from −K to K, while l denotes a delay position and takes values from 0 to L−1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shental et al. (‘905) with the teaching of Lin (‘915) for improved channel or propagation path estimation (Lin (‘915) – paragraph 115). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Shental et al. (‘905) and Lin (‘915)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmission and reception using pilots in frequency division multiplexing signal.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson et al. (US 2013/0121392 A1) relates to a system and a method for processing communication signals to more efficiently achieve channel estimation, particularly in providing channel estimation in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) receiver that performs frequency domain processing (paragraph 4); determining a reference signal based on standard-dictated pilot locations and virtual pilot locations…the virtual pilot locations are in addition to and responsive to the standard-dictated pilot locations…the method performs time domain channel estimation responsive to the reference signal and equalizes a received symbol responsive to the time domain channel estimation (paragraph 19); Receivers implementing advanced wireless communication standards collect a number of symbols into frames and sub-frames corresponding channel estimate…the ten data-only symbols in a sub-frame do not have channel estimation performed on them…operating according to standards that embody these definitions, or definitions like them, forces a receiver to use estimates based on the sparse pilot-bearing-symbol subcarriers to estimate the channel for symbols consisting of data-only subcarriers. Various strategies exist to interpolate values between two known values, generally known as interpolation filters…well-known techniques for interpolation in communications systems include the use of linear interpolation and splines with varying degrees of accuracy and complexity depending on the nature of the signal properties (paragraph 81).
Blasco Serrano et al. (US 10,448,365 B2) describes channel estimation for side-link or Device-to-Device (D2D) communication, and in particular to methods and apparatuses for generating, mapping, and transmitting reference signals used for channel estimation for side-link or Device-to-Device (D2D) communication….generating sequences of reference signals and mapping the generated sequences to subframes using implicit or explicit rules that reduce cross correlation and interference across D2D or side link capable UEs (column 4 line 61-column 5 line 5).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648