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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohwatari et al (US 2009/0207931) (IDS). a) Regarding claims 1 and 8, Ohwatari et al disclose a wireless communication method for performing wireless communication between a transmission device and a reception device (10 in Fig. 1), the wireless communication method comprising:
phase shift amount determination processing (12 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that determines a phase shift amount for each of subcarriers of transmission data (Pub [0032]);
modulation processing (13 in Fig. 1) that modulates the transmission data and further shifts a phase according to the phase shift amount for each of the subcarriers (Pub [0035]);
precoding processing (14 in Fig. 1) that performs precoding on the transmission data after the modulation processing (Pub [0036-0037]); and
transmission processing (16 in Fig. 1) that transmits the transmission data after the precoding processing from the transmission device to the reception device (Pub [0038]), wherein
a plurality of types of phase shift patterns prepared in advance define different phase shift amounts (Pub [0039], U is the number of phase pattern candidates), and the phase shift amount determination processing includes:
selecting, from among the plurality of types of phase shift patterns, one that minimizes a peak to average power ratio (PAPR) of the transmission data after the precoding processing (21 and 22 in Fig. 2; Pub [0039-0041], [0042-0043]) or one that maximizes a reception quality of the transmission data in the reception device (the underlined portion is optional); and
determining the phase shift amount for each of the subcarriers according to the selected phase shift pattern (Pub [0033-0034], [0042]). b) Regarding claim 6, Ohwatari et al disclose a wireless communication system comprising:
a transmission device (10 in Fig. 1);
a reception device (Pub [0043], “the receiving side”; the reception device is an inherent feature), wherein
the transmission device is configured to execute:
phase shift amount determination processing (12 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that determines a phase shift amount for each of subcarriers of transmission data (Pub [0032]);
modulation processing (13 in Fig. 1) that modulates the transmission data and further shifts a phase according to the phase shift amount for each of the subcarriers (Pub [0035]);
precoding processing (14 in Fig. 1) that performs precoding on the transmission data after the modulation processing (Pub [0036-0037]); and
transmission processing (16 in Fig. 1) that transmits the transmission data after the precoding processing from the transmission device to the reception device (Pub [0038]), wherein
a plurality of types of phase shift patterns prepared in advance define different phase shift amounts (Pub [0039], U is the number of phase pattern candidates), and the phase shift amount determination processing includes:
selecting, from among the plurality of types of phase shift patterns, one that minimizes a peak to average power ratio (PAPR) of the transmission data after the precoding processing (21 and 22 in Fig. 2; Pub [0039-0041], [0042-0043]) or one that maximizes a reception quality of the transmission data in the reception device (the underlined portion is optional); and
determining the phase shift amount for each of the subcarriers according to the selected phase shift pattern (Pub [0033-0034], [0042]).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohwatari et al (US 2009/0207931) (IDS). a) Regarding claim 2, Ohwatari et al disclose precoding with phase pattern control in a MIMO-OFDM system, but did not explicitly teach wherein the phase shift amount differs by a certain amount between the two or more subcarriers of the transmission data.
However, Ohwatari et al disclose the PAPR is reduced for each subcarrier by using phase pattern selection according to a formula (7) (Pub [0042]; Fig. 2). The phase pattern selected would change with K and subcarrier N. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to recognize the phase pattern selected for each subcarrier is different between the two or more subcarriers of the transmission data in Ohwatari et al. By doing so, optimize precoding and achieve PAPR reduction in a wireless communication system. b) Regarding claim 3, Ohwatari et al disclose formula (7) for phase pattern selection (Pub [0042]). The phase pattern selected would change with K and subcarrier N. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to recognize the phase pattern selected for each subcarrier is different and by a certain amount between the two or more subcarriers of the transmission data in Ohwatari et al.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. a) Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-8 of prior U.S. Patent No. 18/729,192. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. b) Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-8 of prior U.S. Patent No. 18/729,196. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,239,887 Gao et al disclose precoding matrix and transmission. US 2016/0330061 Wang et al disclose precoding for OFDM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eva Y Puente whose telephone number is 571-272-3049. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chieh Fan can be reached on 571-272-3042. 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). January 7, 2026
/EVA Y PUENTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632