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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/4/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 1, “comprising an input/output interface and a logic circuit” should read “comprising: an input/output interface and a logic circuit”.
In claim 10, line 5, “the logic circuit is configured to map” should read “the logic circuit is configured to: map”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Subject matter eligibility analysis
Claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “where the first data comprises at least two differential data symbols or at least two differential spreading data symbols”. In BRI, the first data is just at least two differential data.
The claim recites “a data unit is any one of the following: the differential data symbol, the differential spreading data symbol, or a differential spreading data symbol block.” In BRI, the data unit is just differential data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The body of the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. However, the preamble of the claim indicates the claimed process is used by a transmitting end. Where the preamble only states the purpose or the field of use of an invention, the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. Such a limitation does not give “life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” (See MPEP 2111.02.) Therefore, the limitations in the preamble do not limit the claim and there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the body of the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. However, the preamble of the claim indicates the claimed process is used by a transmitting end. Where the preamble only states the purpose or the field of use of an invention, the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. Such a limitation does not give “life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” (See MPEP 2111.02.) Therefore, the limitations in the preamble do not limit the claim and there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. Therefore no additional element, or combination of additional elements provides an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “where the first data comprises at least two differential data symbols or at least two differential spreading data symbols”. In BRI, the first data is just at least two differential data.
The claim recites “a data unit is any one of the following: the differential data symbol, the differential spreading data symbol, or a differential spreading data symbol block.” In BRI, the data unit is just differential data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 10 is an apparatus obtain at least two differential data and map the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an apparatus, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites obtain at least two differential data and map the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements “an input/output interface and a logic circuit”, the obtain step is performed by “the input/output interface”, the map step is performed by “the logic circuit”. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites additional elements “an input/output interface and a logic circuit”, the obtain step is performed by “the input/output interface”, the map step is performed by “the logic circuit”. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “where the first data comprises at least two differential data symbols or at least two differential spreading data symbols”. In BRI, the first data is just at least two differential data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship. The mapping relationship specifies how the data is mapped among time-frequency resource.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship. The mapping relationship specifies how the data is mapped among time-frequency resource. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The body of the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. However, the preamble of the claim indicates the claimed process is used by a transmitting end. Where the preamble only states the purpose or the field of use of an invention, the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. Such a limitation does not give “life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” (See MPEP 2111.02.) Therefore, the limitations in the preamble do not limit the claim and there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the body of the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. However, the preamble of the claim indicates the claimed process is used by a transmitting end. Where the preamble only states the purpose or the field of use of an invention, the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. Such a limitation does not give “life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” (See MPEP 2111.02.) Therefore, the limitations in the preamble do not limit the claim and there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. Therefore no additional element, or combination of additional elements provides an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 2 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “where the data unit is the differential data symbol or the differential spreading data symbol.” In BRI, the data unit is just differential data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship. The mapping relationship specifies how the data is mapped among time-frequency resource.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship. The mapping relationship specifies how the data is mapped among time-frequency resource. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The body of the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. However, the preamble of the claim indicates the claimed process is used by a transmitting end. Where the preamble only states the purpose or the field of use of an invention, the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. Such a limitation does not give “life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” (See MPEP 2111.02.) Therefore, the limitations in the preamble do not limit the claim and there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the body of the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. However, the preamble of the claim indicates the claimed process is used by a transmitting end. Where the preamble only states the purpose or the field of use of an invention, the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. Such a limitation does not give “life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” (See MPEP 2111.02.) Therefore, the limitations in the preamble do not limit the claim and there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. Therefore no additional element, or combination of additional elements provides an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 11 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations of claim 2. Claim 11 is ineligible under similar rational.
Claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 3 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “where the data unit is the differential spreading data symbol block”. In BRI, the data unit is just differential data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship. The mapping relationship specifies how the data is mapped among time-frequency resource.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship. The mapping relationship specifies how the data is mapped among time-frequency resource. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The body of the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. However, the preamble of the claim indicates the claimed process is used by a transmitting end. Where the preamble only states the purpose or the field of use of an invention, the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. Such a limitation does not give “life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” (See MPEP 2111.02.) Therefore, the limitations in the preamble do not limit the claim and there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the body of the claim does not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. However, the preamble of the claim indicates the claimed process is used by a transmitting end. Where the preamble only states the purpose or the field of use of an invention, the preamble does not limit the scope of the claim. Such a limitation does not give “life, meaning and vitality to the claim.” (See MPEP 2111.02.) Therefore, the limitations in the preamble do not limit the claim and there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception. Therefore no additional element, or combination of additional elements provides an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 12 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 12 recites similar limitations of claim 3. Claim 12 is ineligible under similar rational.
Claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 4 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency, outputting or transmitting an initial value of the data.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, outputting or transmitting the initial value of the data, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element outputting or transmitting an initial value of the data. The outputting or transmitting an initial value of the data are mere data output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites additional element outputting or transmitting an initial value of the data. The outputting or transmitting an initial value of the data are mere data output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore this additional element does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 13 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations of claim 4. Claim 13 is ineligible under similar rational.
Claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 5 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “generating data of an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol based on data on the time-frequency resource; and sending the data of the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol to a second communication device;”, “performing Fourier transform to obtain corresponding Fourier transform output data; generating data of a single carrier frequency division multiple access symbol based on the Fourier transform output data; and sending the data of the single carrier frequency division multiple access symbol to a receiving end.”. In BRI, just generating data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol, sending the data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency, generating data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol, sending the data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, generating data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol, sending the data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element generating data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol and sending the data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol. These limitations are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites additional element generating data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol and sending the data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol. The generating data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol and sending the data of OFDM symbol or single carrier FDMA symbol are well known in the art. Therefore this additional element does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 14 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations of claim 5. Claim 13 is ineligible under similar rational.
Claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 6 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “where the first data comprises differential data symbols generated by using a Pi/2 binary phase shift keying (Pi/2−BPSK) modulation scheme, and a phase difference between two adjacent differential data symbols is π/2 or −π/2.”. In BRI, the data is generated by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency, the data is generated by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element the data is generated by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme. This limitation is mere data gathering at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites additional element the data is generated by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme. The data generation by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme is well known in the art. Therefore this additional element does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 15 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations of claim 6. Claim 15 is ineligible under similar rational.
Claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 7 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1 and 6.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “where a phase difference between any two modulated symbols is π or 0, and the differential data symbol is obtained based on differential modulation of the modulated symbol.”. In BRI, the data is obtained based on differential modulation of modulated data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency, the data is obtained based on differential modulation of modulated data.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element the data is obtained based on differential modulation of modulated data. This limitation is mere data gathering at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites additional element the data is obtained based on differential modulation of modulated data. The differential modulation is well known in the art. Therefore this additional element does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 16 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 10 and 15.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations of claim 7. Claim 16 is ineligible under similar rational.
Claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 8 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 1 and 6.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2111.
The claim recites “where the modulated symbol is obtained by modulating to-be-sent bit data according to the Pi/2-BPSK modulation scheme, and
a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data and the modulated symbol satisfies:
d(m) = 1 – 2b(m), … and
a relationship between the modulated symbol and the differential data symbol satisfies:
x(m) = e^(j * pi (m mod 2)/2) x(m-1) * d(m), …; or
a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data and the modulated symbol satisfies:
d(m) = j [1 – 2b(m)], … and
a relationship between the modulated symbol and the differential data symbol satisfies:
x(m) = x (m-1) * d(m), …”.
In BRI, the modulated data is obtained by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme based on d(m) = 1 – 2b(m) or d(m) = j [1 – 2b(m)], the data (differential data) is obtained based on x(m) = e^(j * pi (m mod 2)/2) x(m-1) * d(m) or x(m) = x (m-1) * d(m).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8 is a method of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency, the data is obtained based on x(m) = e^(j * pi (m mod 2)/2) x(m-1) * d(m) or x(m) = x (m-1) * d(m), the modulated data is obtained by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme based on d(m) = 1 – 2b(m) or d(m) = j [1 – 2b(m)].
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites the steps or acts of obtaining data and mapping the data, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
The claim recites steps of obtaining at least two differential data and mapping the data based on a mapping relationship where the mapping relationship comprises two adjacent data are adjacent in time or frequency. This is simply the obtaining and organizing the data which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information. Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea: mental process). The claim further recites how the data and the modulated data are obtained based on mathematic formulas. Thus, the claim recites another judicial exception (an abstract idea: mathematical formulas) (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element the modulated data is obtained by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme. This limitation is mere data gathering at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites additional element the modulated data is obtained by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme. The data generation by Pi/2−BPSK modulation scheme is well known in the art. Therefore this additional element does not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 17 is a dependent claim that depends from and requires all the limitations of claim 10 and 15.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations of claim 8. Claim 17 is ineligible under similar rational.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021196048 A1 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches An apparatus, comprising (Liu Fig. 24, [0352] Please refer to
Figure 24, a schematic structural diagram of a data transmission device provided in an embodiment
of this application.):
an input/output interface and a logic circuit, the input/output interface is configured to (Liu Fig.
24, [0352] The data transmission device 2400 shown in Figure 24 may include a communication unit 2401 and a processing unit 2402. The communication unit 2401 may include a sending unit and a receiving unit. The sending unit is used to implement the sending function, the receiving unit is used to implement the receiving function, and the communication unit 2401 can implement the sending and/or receiving function.
[0080] for the transmission, sending, and receiving operations involved in the processor, unless otherwise specified, or if they do not conflict with their actual function or internal logic in the relevant description, they can generally be understood as processor output, reception, and input operations.):
obtain first data, where the first data comprises at least two differential data symbols or at least two differential spreading data symbols (Liu [0130] As shown in Figure 3, the data after discrete Fourier transform is called the raw data on the resource unit, denoted as s_k^m where m represents the symbol corresponding to the resource unit, and k represents the subcarrier corresponding to this resource unit. In the embodiment of this application, the transmitter can perform differential encoding on the original data s_k^m during subcarrier mapping, obtaining the data to be sent. The transmitter can then process the data x_k^m to be sent Maps are sent on the corresponding symbols and subcarriers.
[0132] Please refer to Figure 4. Figure 4 is a flowchart of a data transmission method provided in an embodiment of this application. Based on the data processing process shown in Figure 3, as shown in Figure 4, the data transmission method may include the following steps:
[0133] 201. The sending end performs differential encoding on the original data on at least two consecutive resources to obtain the data to be sent;
[0154] The transmitter can differentially encode the original data on at least two consecutive symbols to obtain the data to be sent; Then, the data to be sent is mapped to at least two consecutive symbols for transmission.
[0155] The smallest resource granularity in the time domain is a symbol, and in the frequency domain, the smallest resource granularity is a subcarrier. The resource unit can be denoted as RE(m, k). m means the symbol corresponding to the resource unit is the mth symbol, and k means the subcarrier corresponding to this resource unit is the k-th subcarrier.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: x_k^(m-1) and x_k^m are differential data symbols.); and
the logic circuit is configured to: map, based on a mapping relationship between the first data and a time-frequency resource, the first data to the time-frequency resource for transmission (Liu [0134] 202. The sending end maps the data to be sent to at least two consecutive resources for transmission.
[0094] Figure 5 is a schematic diagram of time-domain differential coding and differential decomposition code in time frequency resources provided by an embodiment of this application.
[0160] K can be the order of the subcarrier with the highest frequency in the preset time-frequency resource block.
[0204] Here, M can be the order of the symbol closest to the time domain in the preset time-frequency resource block.),
where the mapping relationship comprises: two adjacent data units in the first data are adjacent in time domain or frequency domain on the time-frequency resource (Liu
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note: x_k^3 and x_k^2 are two differential data symbols that are adjacent in time domain, x_k^3 is mapped on resource unit RE(3, k), x_k^2 is mapped on resource unit RE(2, k), and RE(3, k) is adjacent to RE(2, k) as shown in Fig. 5.); and
a data unit is any one of: the differential data symbol, the differential spreading data symbol, or a differential spreading data symbol block (Liu [0161-0164] cited above. x_k^3 and x_k^2 are differential data symbols.).
Claim 1 recites similar limitations of claim 10, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches A method, where the method is applicable to a transmitting end
and the method comprises (Liu [0005] The embodiments of this application provide a data transmission method and related equipment capable of using differential coding for data transmission.):
obtaining first data, where the first data comprises at least two differential data symbols or at least two differential spreading data symbols (Liu [0130] As shown in Figure 3, the data after discrete Fourier transform is called the raw data on the resource unit, denoted as s_k^m where m represents the symbol corresponding to the resource unit, and k represents the subcarrier corresponding to this resource unit. In the embodiment of this application, the transmitter can perform differential encoding on the original data s_k^m during subcarrier mapping, obtaining the data to be sent. The transmitter can then process the data x_k^m to be sent Maps are sent on the corresponding symbols and subcarriers.
[0132] Please refer to Figure 4. Figure 4 is a flowchart of a data transmission method provided in an embodiment of this application. Based on the data processing process shown in Figure 3, as shown in Figure 4, the data transmission method may include the following steps:
[0133] 201. The sending end performs differential encoding on the original data on at least two consecutive resources to obtain the data to be sent;
[0154] The transmitter can differentially encode the original data on at least two consecutive symbols to obtain the data to be sent; Then, the data to be sent is mapped to at least two consecutive symbols for transmission.
[0155] The smallest resource granularity in the time domain is a symbol, and in the frequency domain, the smallest resource granularity is a subcarrier. The resource unit can be denoted as RE(m, k). m means the symbol corresponding to the resource unit is the mth symbol, and k means the subcarrier corresponding to this resource unit is the k-th subcarrier.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: x_k^(m-1) and x_k^m are differential data symbols.); and
mapping, based on a mapping relationship between the first data and a time-frequency resource, the first data to the time-frequency resource for transmission, where the time-frequency resource comprises L symbols and K subcarriers (Liu [0134] 202. The sending end maps the data to be sent to at least two consecutive resources for transmission.
[0094] Figure 5 is a schematic diagram of time-domain differential coding and differential decomposition code in time frequency resources provided by an embodiment of this application.
[0160] K can be the order of the subcarrier with the highest frequency in the preset time-frequency resource block.
[0204] Here, M can be the order of the symbol closest to the time domain in the preset time-frequency resource block.), and
the mapping relationship comprises one or more of:
the first data is mapped along the K subcarriers in a first direction on the 2l.sup.th symbol (Liu Fig. 5,
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note: x_k^2 is mapped on RE (2, k), k=1, 2, … K on the second symbol of time-frequency resource with the subcarrier k from 1 to K. 2l = 2 in this example.), and
is mapped along the K subcarriers in the first direction on the (2q+1).sup.th symbol based on a data unit (Liu
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Note: x_k^3 is mapped on RE (3, k), k=1, 2, … K on the third symbol of time-frequency resource
with the subcarrier k from 1 to K. 2q + 1 = 3 in this example.),
where the data unit is the differential data symbol Liu [0161-0164] cited above. x_k^3 and x_k^2 are differential data symbols.),
Liu, [0161-0164], Note: l = 1, 2l = 2; q = 1, 2q+1 = 3. In Liu, the index for symbol and subcarrier is 1 based. It can be converted easily to 0 based index as in the claim).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches The method according to claim 1.
Liu teaches further comprising: outputting an initial value of the first data, where the initial
value of the first data is predefined, or transmitting the initial value of the first data when the first data is mapped to the time-frequency resource for transmission (Liu [0161] For example, as shown in Figure 5, suppose the preset time-frequency resource block includes M symbols and K subcarriers, and the first reference data is denoted as the first reference data can be mapped to the first symbol of the preset time-frequency resource block, used to participate in the first differential coding to sequentially obtain the data to be sent on the continuous symbols.
[0197] the first reference data in the time domain can be explicitly or implicitly indicated, predefined, or signal-configured.).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations of claim 4, is thus rejected under similar rational.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of CN 110890955 A (US 20210195568 A1 used as English translation of CN 110890955 A, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches The method according to claim 1.
Liu teaches where the data unit is the differential data symbol or the differential
spreading data symbol, the time-frequency resource comprises L symbols and K subcarriers (Liu [0130], [0132-0133], [0154-0160], [0204] and Fig. 5 cited above in rejection of claim 10.), and the mapping relationship comprises one or more of:
the first data is mapped along the K subcarriers in a first direction on the 2l.sup.th symbol (Liu Fig. 5,
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note: x_k^2 is mapped on RE (2, k), k=1, 2, … K on the second symbol of time-frequency resource with the subcarrier k from 1 to K. 2l = 2; l = 1.), and
is mapped along the K subcarriers in a second direction on the (2q+1).sup.th symbol based on the data unit (Liu
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Note: x_k^3 is mapped on RE (3, k), k=1, 2, … K on the third symbol of time-frequency resource
with the subcarrier k from 1 to K. 2q + 1 = 3; q = 1.),
where, Liu, [0161-0164], Note: l = 1, 2l = 2; q = 1, 2q+1 = 3. In Liu, the index for symbol and subcarrier is 1 based. It can be converted easily to 0 based index as in the claim.).
Liu does not explicitly teach where the first direction is opposite to the second direction.
Wang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches where the first direction is opposite to the second direction (Wang [0124] FIG. 10a are a schematic diagram of time-domain-first mapping according to an embodiment of this application.
[0216] as shown in FIG. 10a, the first direction may be a frequency domain increasing direction, and the second direction may be a frequency domain decreasing direction.).
By modifying Liu’s teachings of where the data unit is the differential data symbol or the differential spreading data symbol, the time-frequency resource comprises L symbols and K subcarriers, and the mapping relationship comprises one or more of:
the first data is mapped along the K subcarriers in a first direction on the 2l.sup.th symbol, and is mapped along the K subcarriers in a second direction on the (2q+1).sup.th symbol based on the data unit, where, l is an integer that satisfies 0≤2l≤L−1, q is an integer that satisfies 0≤2q+1≤L−1, and L and K are integers greater than 1 with Wang’s teachings of where the first direction is opposite to the second direction, the modification results in
where the data unit is the differential data symbol or the differential spreading data symbol, the time-frequency resource comprises L symbols and K subcarriers, and the mapping relationship comprises one or more of:
the first data is mapped along the K subcarriers in a first direction on the 2l.sup.th symbol, and is mapped along the K subcarriers in a second direction on the (2q+1).sup.th symbol based on the data unit,
where the first direction is opposite to the second direction,
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu with Wang’s above teachings. The motivation is ensuring that available resource elements on the i.sup.th OFDM symbol and the (i+1).sup.th OFDM symbol are adjacent and thus improving performance (Wang [0026-0027]).
Claim 11 recites similar limitations of claim 2, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 20210067393 A1 (hereinafter Masuda) and Wang.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches The method according to claim 1.
Liu does not explicitly teach where the data unit is the differential spreading data symbol block,
the differential spreading data symbol block comprises l.sub.block×k.sub.block differential spreading data symbols, the time-frequency resource comprises L symbols and K subcarriers, and the mapping relationship comprises one or more of: the first data is mapped along the L symbols in a first direction between the 2k×k.sub.block.sup.th subcarrier and the ((2k+1)k.sub.block−1).sup.th subcarrier, and is mapped along the L symbols in a second direction between the (2p+1)k.sub.block.sup.th subcarrier and the (2(p+1)k.sub.block−1).sup.th subcarrier based on the data unit; or the first data is mapped along the K subcarriers in a first direction between the 2l×l.sub.block symbol and the ((2l+1)l.sub.block−1).sup.th symbol, and is mapped along the K subcarriers in a second direction between the (2p+1)l.sub.block.sup.th symbol and the (2(q+1)l.sub.block−1).sup.th symbol based on the data unit, where the first direction is opposite to the second direction, k is an integer that satisfies 0≤ (2k+1)k.sub.block−1≤K−1, p is an integer that satisfies 0≤2 (p+1)k.sub.block−1≤K−1, l is an integer that satisfies 0≤ (2l+1)l.sub.block−1≤L−1, q is an integer that satisfies 0≤2 (q+1)l.sub.block−1≤L−1, l.sub.block is an integer that satisfies 1≤l.sub.block≤L, k.sub.block is an integer that satisfies 1≤k.sub.block≤K, and L and K are integers greater than 1.
Masuda in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches where the data unit is the differential
data symbol block (Masuda [0035] FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating differentially coded symbols generated by the second differential block coding unit 4 illustrated in FIG. 1.),
the differential data symbol block comprises l.sub.block×k.sub.block differential data symbols, the time-frequency resource comprises L symbols and K subcarriers (Masuda In FIG. 5, a dashed ellipse indicates the block that is a processing unit including two symbols, and an arrow indicates the direction of differential block coding performed by the second differential block coding unit 4.
Note: l.sub.block = 2, k.sub.block = 1; L = Nos, K = Nsc), and
the mapping relationship comprises one or more of: the first data is mapped along the L symbols in a first direction between the 2k×k.sub.block.sup.th subcarrier and the ((2k+1)k.sub.block−1).sup.th subcarrier (Masuda Fig. 5, subcarrier SC#0, OFDM symbols OS #0 to OS # (N.sub.os−1).
Note: k = 0, k.sub.block = 1, (2k+1)k.sub.block−1 = 0.), and
is mapped along the L symbols in a second direction between the (2p+1)k.sub.block.sup.th subcarrier and the (2(p+1)k.sub.block−1).sup.th subcarrier based on the data unit (Masuda Fig. 5, subcarrier SC#1, OFDM symbols OS #0 to OS # (N.sub.os−1).
Note: p = 0, k.sub.block = 1, 2 (p+1)k.sub.block−1 = 1.);
where, k is an integer that satisfies 0≤ (2k+1)k.sub.block−1≤K−1 (Note: k = 0, k.sub.block = 1, (2k+1)k.sub.block−1 = 0), p is an integer that satisfies 0≤2 (p+1)k.sub.block−1≤K−1 (Note: p = 0, 2 (p+1)k.sub.block−1 = 1.), l.sub.block is an integer that satisfies 1≤l.sub.block≤L (Note: l.sub.block = 2), k.sub.block is an integer that satisfies 1≤k.sub.block≤K (Note: k.sub.block = 1), and L and K are integers greater than 1 (Note: L = Nos, K = Nsc).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu with Masuda’s above teachings. The motivation is improving the transmission rate (Masuda [0006]).
Masuda does not explicitly teach data symbol block is spreading data symbol block, where the first direction is opposite to the second direction.
Wang in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches data symbol block is spreading data symbol block (Wang Fig. 2a, [0154] After performing spreading and modulation on the input data, the transmit end may obtain two spreading blocks, and each spreading block includes four complex symbols.), where the first direction is opposite to the second direction (Wang Fig. 12a [0126] FIG. 12a are a schematic diagram of frequency-domain-first mapping according to an embodiment of this application;
[0219] In this embodiment of this application, as shown in FIG. 12a, the third direction is a time domain increasing direction, and the fourth direction is a time domain decreasing direction.).
By modifying Masuda’s teachings of where the data unit is the differential data symbol block, the differential data symbol block comprises l.sub.block×k.sub.block differential data symbols, the time-frequency resource comprises L symbols and K subcarriers, and
the mapping relationship comprises one or more of: the first data is mapped along the L symbols in a first direction between the 2k×k.sub.block.sup.th subcarrier and the ((2k+1)k.sub.block−1).sup.th subcarrier, and is mapped along the L symbols in a second direction between the (2p+1)k.sub.block.sup.th subcarrier and the (2(p+1)k.sub.block−1).sup.th subcarrier based on the data unit; where, k is an integer that satisfies 0≤ (2k+1)k.sub.block−1≤K−1, p is an integer that satisfies 0≤2 (p+1)k.sub.block−1≤K−1, l.sub.block is an integer that satisfies 1≤l.sub.block≤L, k.sub.block is an integer that satisfies 1≤k.sub.block≤K, and L and K are integers greater than 1 with Wang’s teachings of data symbol block is spreading data symbol block, where the first direction is opposite to the second direction, the modification results in
where the data unit is the differential spreading data symbol block, the differential spreading
data symbol block comprises l.sub.block×k.sub.block differential spreading data symbols, the time-frequency resource comprises L symbols and K subcarriers, and the mapping relationship comprises one or more of:
the first data is mapped along the L symbols in a first direction between the 2k×k.sub.block.sup.th subcarrier and the ((2k+1)k.sub.block−1).sup.th subcarrier, and is mapped along the L symbols in a second direction between the (2p+1)k.sub.block.sup.th subcarrier and the (2(p+1)k.sub.block−1).sup.th subcarrier based on the data unit; or
where the first direction is opposite to the second direction, k is an integer that satisfies 0≤ (2k+1)k.sub.block−1≤K−1, p is an integer that satisfies 0≤2 (p+1)k.sub.block−1≤K−1,
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu as modified by Masuda with Wang’s above teachings. The motivation is ensuring that symbols in a same spreading block are mapped to adjacent RE locations thus improving performance (Wang [0221]).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations of claim 3, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of CN 101699808 A (hereinafter Tao).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches The method according to claim 1.
Although Liu teaches further comprising one of:
(i) mapping the first data to the time-frequency resource, and generating data of a symbol based
on data on the time-frequency resource (Liu [0130] As shown in Figure 3, the data after discrete Fourier transform is called the raw data on the resource unit, denoted as s_k^m where m represents the symbol corresponding to the resource unit, and k represents the subcarrier corresponding to this resource unit. In the embodiment of this application, the transmitter can perform differential encoding on the original data s_k^m during subcarrier mapping, obtaining the data to be sent.
); and
sending the data of the symbol to a second communication device (Liu [0130] The transmitter can then process the data x_k^m to be sent Maps are sent on the corresponding symbols and subcarriers.);
Liu does not explicitly teach the symbol is an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol.
Tao in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the symbol is an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol (Tao [0022] Figure 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating the principle of mapping to the corresponding subcarriers of OFDM symbols using a simultaneous time-domain and frequency-domain mapping method.).
By modifying Liu’s teachings of further comprising one of:
(i) mapping the first data to the time-frequency resource, and generating data of a symbol based
on data on the time-frequency resource; and sending the data of the symbol to a second communication device with Tao’s teachings of the symbol is an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol, the modification results in
(i) mapping the first data to the time-frequency resource, and generating data of an orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing symbol based on data on the time-frequency resource; and
sending the data of the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing symbol to a second communication device;
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu with Tao’s above teachings. The motivation is improving channel utilization (Tao [0005]).
Claim 14 recites similar limitations of claim 5, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of CN 111770041 A (US 20220021570 A1 used as English translation of CN 111770041 A, hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches The method according to claim 1.
Although Liu teaches differential data symbols, where the first data comprises differential data
symbols (Liu [0130], [0132-0133], [0154-0160] cited above in rejection of claim 10), Liu does not explicitly teach generated by using a Pi/2 binary phase shift keying (Pi/2−BPSK) modulation scheme, and a phase difference between two adjacent data is π/2 or −π/2.
Hu in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches generated by using a Pi/2 binary phase shift keying (Pi/2−BPSK) modulation scheme, and a phase difference between two adjacent data is π/2 or −π/2 (Hu [0043] π/2-BPSK modulation scheme may be used, to obtain the modulated data d, and the modulated data satisfies the following: A phase difference between two adjacent pieces of data in the modulated data d is π/2 or −π/2.).
By modifying Liu’s teachings of differential data symbols, where the first data comprises
differential data symbols with Hu’s teachings of generated by using a Pi/2 binary phase shift keying (Pi/2−BPSK) modulation scheme, and a phase difference between two adjacent data is π/2 or −π/2, the modification results in
where the first data comprises differential data symbols generated by using a Pi/2 binary phase shift keying (Pi/2−BPSK) modulation scheme, and a phase difference between two adjacent differential data symbols is π/2 or −π/2.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu with Hu’s above teachings. The motivation is lowering peak to average power ratio (PAPR) and improving system data transmission rate (Hu [0005]).
Claim 15 recites similar limitations of claim 6, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Hu teaches The method according to claim 6.
Although Liu teaches the differential data symbol is obtained based on differential modulation (Liu [0130], [0132-0133], [0154-0160] cited above in rejection of claim 10; [0171] In other words, formulas (1) and (2) mean: For any two consecutive symbols corresponding to RE, the data to be
sent on the later RE in the time domain is obtained based on differential modulation of the data to be sent in the earlier RE in the time domain.), Liu does not explicitly teach the modulated symbol, where a phase difference between any two modulated symbols is π or 0.
Hu teaches the modulated symbol, where a phase difference between any two modulated symbols is π or 0 (Hu [0116] In this embodiment of this application, the modulated data d.sub.bpsk may alternatively be obtained in another BPSK modulation scheme, and the another BPSK modulation scheme satisfies the following: A phase difference between two adjacent pieces of data in the modulated data is 0 or π.).
By modifying Liu’s teachings of the differential data symbol is obtained based on differential modulation with Hu’s teachings of the modulated symbol, where a phase difference between any two modulated symbols is π or 0, the modification results in
where a phase difference between any two modulated symbols is π or 0, and the differential data symbol is obtained based on differential modulation of the modulated symbol.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu with Hu’s above teachings. The motivation is lowering peak to average power ratio (PAPR) and improving system data transmission rate (Hu [0005]).
Claim 16 recites similar limitations of claim 7, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Hu as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of US 20190149381 A1 (hereinafter Vos).
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Hu teaches The method according to claim 6.
Although Liu teaches a relationship between data symbol and the differential data
symbol satisfies:
x(m) = x (m-1) * data(m),
where x(m) represents the m.sup.th differential data symbol in at least two differential data
symbols, x(m−1) represents the (m−1).sup.th differential data symbol in the at least two differential data symbols, and data(m) represents the m.sup.th data symbols (Liu [0130], [0132-0133], [0154-0162] cited above in rejection of claim 10.
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Note: x_k^m (k= 1, … K) is m.sup.th differential data symbol, x_k^(m-1) (k= 1, … K) is (m-1).sup.th differential data symbol, s_k^m (k= 1, … K) is m.sup.th data symbol.).
Liu does not explicitly teach data symbol is the modulated symbol, where the modulated symbol is obtained by modulating to-be-sent bit data according to the Pi/2-BPSK modulation scheme, and
a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data and the modulated symbol satisfies:
d(m) = j [1 – 2b(m)],
where b(m) represents the m.sup.th piece of to-be-sent bit data in at least two pieces of to-be-sent bit data, d(m) represents the m.sup.th modulated symbol in at least two modulated symbols, and j represents an imaginary symbol;
Hu in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches data symbol is the modulated symbol, where the modulated symbol is obtained by modulating to-be-sent bit data according to the Pi/2-BPSK modulation scheme, and
a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data b(m) and the modulated symbol d(m),
where b(m) represents the m.sup.th piece of to-be-sent bit data in at least two pieces of to-be-sent bit data, d(m) represents the m.sup.th modulated symbol in at least two modulated symbols, and j represents an imaginary symbol (Hu [0040] In this embodiment of this application, when a piece of data is π/2-BPSK modulated data, it indicates that the data is data obtained after if π/2-BPSK modulation is performed on a to-be-modulated bit.
[0042] For example, the to-be-modulated bit is represented as b, and b includes M bits, where an m.sup.th bit is represented as b(m), and a value of b(m) is 0 or 1. A value of M ranges from 0 to M−1. In other words, m may be taken from 0 to M−1. π/2-BPSK modulation may be performed on the to-be-modulated bit b to obtain if π/2-BPSK modulated data d with a length of M, where an m.sup.th piece of data in d is represented as d(m).
[0043] Optionally,
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
where j represents an imaginary unit, a square of the imaginary unit is equal to −1, and mod represents a modulo operation. In this embodiment of this application, another π/2-BPSK modulation scheme may be used, to obtain the modulated data d, and the modulated data satisfies the following: A phase difference between two adjacent pieces of data in the modulated data d is π/2 or −π/2.);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu as modified by Hu with Hu’s above teachings. The motivation is lowering peak to average power ratio (PAPR) and improving system data transmission rate (Hu [0005]).
Hu does not explicitly teach a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data and the modulated symbol satisfies: d(m) = j [1 – 2b(m)]
Vos in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data and the modulated symbol satisfies: d(m) = j [1 – 2b(m)] (Vos [0014] FIG. 2 illustrates two sets of constellations for pi/2 BPSK (Set A and Set B), according to an embodiment of the present invention.
[0034] FIG. 2 illustrates two constellations for pi/2 BPSK, according to embodiments of the present invention. Each constellation is also referred to as a set, to denote that it is a set of constellation points (or modulation symbols). The two sets are denoted Set A and Set B. As illustrated, Set A 210 includes the two points {+1 −1} (212, 214) and Set B 230 includes the two points {+i −i} (222, 224).
Note: For Set B, two modulation symbols {+i -i} satisfying d(m) = i [ 1- 2 b(m)]. When b(m) = 0, d(m) = i; when b(m) = 1, d(m) = -i. i is an imaginary unit.)
By modifying Liu’s teachings of
a relationship between data symbol and the differential data symbol satisfies: x(m) = x (m-1) * data(m),
where x(m) represents the m.sup.th differential data symbol in at least two differential data
symbols, x(m−1) represents the (m−1).sup.th differential data symbol in the at least two differential data symbols, and data(m) represents the m.sup.th data symbols with
Hu’s teachings of
data symbol is the modulated symbol, where the modulated symbol is obtained by modulating to-be-sent bit data according to the Pi/2-BPSK modulation scheme, and
a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data b(m) and the modulated symbol d(m),
where b(m) represents the m.sup.th piece of to-be-sent bit data in at least two pieces of to-be-sent bit data, d(m) represents the m.sup.th modulated symbol in at least two modulated symbols, and j represents an imaginary symbol, and
Vos’s teachings of
a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data and the modulated symbol satisfies: d(m) = j [1 – 2b(m)], the modification results in
where the modulated symbol is obtained by modulating to-
be-sent bit data according to the Pi/2-BPSK modulation scheme, and
a relationship between the to-be-sent bit data and the modulated symbol satisfies:
d(m) = j [1 – 2b(m)],
where b(m) represents the m.sup.th piece of to-be-sent bit data in at least two pieces of to-be-sent bit data, d(m) represents the m.sup.th modulated symbol in at least two modulated symbols, and j represents an imaginary symbol; and
a relationship between the modulated symbol and the differential data symbol satisfies:
x(m) = x (m-1) * d(m),
where x(m) represents the m.sup.th differential data symbol in at least two differential data symbols, x(m−1) represents the (m−1).sup.th differential data symbol in the at least two differential data symbols, and d(m) represents the m.sup.th modulated symbol in the at least two modulated symbols.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu as modified by Hu with Vos’s above teachings. The motivation is lowering peak to average power ratio (PAPR) (Vos [0005]).
Claim 17 recites similar limitations of claim 8, is thus rejected under similar rational.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Z Sun whose telephone number is (571)270-0750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800am-0500pm.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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.
/D.Z.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights