DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 08/02/2024. Claims 1-20, of which claims 1 and 12 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 1, claim recites the limitation “the receiver” (line 8 of claim 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, claims recites the limitation “the first RF signal” (line 7 of claim 1; line 9 claim 12 ), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear whether it is refereeing to the provided first RF signal (line 3 of claim 1; line 5 of claim 12) or the encrypted first RF signal (line 5 of claim 1; line 7 of claim 12). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the encrypted first RF signal--.
Claims recite the limitation “the second RF signal” (line 7 of claim 1; line 9 claim 12 ), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear whether it is refereeing to the second RF signal (line 4 of claim 1; line 6 of claim 12) or the modulated second RF signal (line 4 of claim 1; line 6 of claim 12). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the modulated second RF signal--.
Claims recite the limitation “decrypting the first RF signal” ( last line of claims 1 and 12 ), which is vague and indefinite, because it is not clear whether it is refereeing to the received first RF signal before or after cancelling its signal interference with the received second RF signal.
Claims recite the limitation “forming a composite signal from the first RF signal and the second RF signal; transmitting, with the transmitter, the composite signal to the receiver through at least one RF channel having a spectral mask” (line 7 of claim 1; line 9 of claim 12). However, claims later recite “wherein the first RF signal and second RF signal are transmitted at a same time and frequency” (line 9 of claim 1; line 12 of claim 12), which is vague and indefinite, because the first RF signal and second RF signal already used to form the composite signal, which is then transmitted. It is noted that the specification recites: “The RF transmitter 20 processes base signal bits through a quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) modulator and an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (QFDM) modulator, and processes orbital signal bits corresponding to the base signals through the QPSK modulator and a QFDM modulator and power scaling unit. The signals are converted at a digital-to-analog converter (DAC), and these two signals are transmitted simultaneously as a composite signal through the channel 30 to be recovered by the receiver 40.” (lines 4-10 of page 9 – emphasis added). Therefore, it is recommended to replace the language “forming a composite signal from the first RF signal and the second RF signal; transmitting, with the transmitter, the composite signal to the receiver through at least one RF channel having a spectral mask, and wherein the first RF signal and second RF signal are transmitted at a same time and frequency” (lines 7-10 of claim 1; lines 9-13 of claim 12) with phrase --transmitting, with the transmitter, the encrypted first RF signal and the modulated second RF signal simultaneously as a composite signal to the receiver through at least one RF channel having a spectral mask, wherein the encrypted first RF signal and the modulated second RF signal are transmitted at a same time and frequency--.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 13-20, claims are rejected due to its/their dependency to the rejected claims 1 and 12, correspondingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Robinson (US 11,838,078 B2) disclose “using UBDM ... saving significant power draw, battery life, delay and latency in the network, physical space on the chip, and all of the overhead associated with encryption” (lines 45-49 of col. 7 – emphasis added).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA, or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights