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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 9/11/26.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-17, and 20-24 are pending.
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.
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) 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 15, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., US 2022/0174676, (“Huang”), in view of Reynolds et al., US 2016/0365890, (“Reynolds”), newly cited.
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches “A wireless communication method, comprising:
receiving a carrier signal transmitted by a carrier transmitting device (Fig. 1, backscatter device receives signal transmitted by an exciter; see also, Fig. 4, backscatter device receives first excitation signal at step S110; paragraph no. 0102, “S110: An exciter sends a first excitation signal to a backscatter device, and the backscatter device receives the first excitation signal from the exciter”); and
transmitting a back scattering signal to the carrier transmitting device according to the carrier signal (Fig. 1, backscatter device transmits signal to the receiver; see also, Fig. 4, step S130, backscatter device transmits a backscattering signal to the receiver; note that the exciter and the receiver are part of one node (see paragraph no. 0098); paragraph no. 0119, “S130: The backscatter device sends a backscattered signal of the first excitation signal to the receiver based on the first resource, and the receiver may receive, on a second resource, the backscattered signal sent by the backscatter device”);
wherein a frequency-domain resource characteristic of the back scattering signal is related to a frequency-domain resource of the carrier signal” (paragraph no. 0119, “S130: The backscatter device sends a backscattered signal of the first excitation signal to the receiver based on the first resource, and the receiver may receive, on a second resource, the backscattered signal sent by the backscatter device”; see also, paragraph no. 0099, “In frequency domain, the backscattered signal obtained through modulation is equivalent to shifting a spectrum of the excitation signal by Δƒ=1/T, and the spectrum is shown in FIG. 3. To be specific, the exciter sends the excitation signal to the backscatter device on a frequency ƒc. The backscatter device sends the backscattered signal to the receiver on a frequency ƒc+Δƒ”).
Regarding the newly amended claim limitation “wherein the frequency-domain resource of the carrier signal is related to a bandwidth of a channel on which the back scattering signal is located” of claim 1, Huang appears to implicitly teach this limitation, see, e.g., paragraph no. 0016, “the first excitation signal is a pseudo-random signal, and the pseudo-random signal may occupy specific bandwidth. This helps a receiver to perform detection. In addition, bandwidth of the pseudo-random signal may be constrained, and bandwidth of the backscattered signal of the first excitation signal may be further constrained, so that it can be ensured that a backscatter communication system does not affect another communications system.” The bandwidth of the backscattered signal is implicitly included in a bandwidth of a channel on which the backscattered signal is transmitted. Hence, the frequency resource of the first excitation signal must be related to a bandwidth of the channel on which the backscattered signal is located/transmitted.
Reynolds explicitly teaches the newly amended claim limitation of claim 1, see Figs. 1 and 6A-6C and paragraph nos. 0112, 0137, 0143 which disclose that the frequency resource (e.g., channel 38 of Fig. 6A) of a carrier signal (source signal shown in Fig. 6A and 130 of Fig. 1) is related to a bandwidth of a channel (e.g., channel 37, Fig. 6B) on which the backscattered signal (backscattered signal 135 of Fig. 1 and either zero (Fig. 6B) or one (Fig. 6C) associated with channel 37) is located.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang by incorporating the teachings of Reynolds to facilitate the transmission and reception of a backscattered signal between backscatter devices and wireless communication devices, as suggested by Reynolds in the abstract.
Regarding independent claim 15, this independent claim is a corresponding apparatus (i.e. UE) claim of the method claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims. Regarding further independent claim 15, see Fig. 9 of Huang for the claimed structural elements of the claim. Note that the claimed “transceiver” reads on the communications interface 620 – see paragraph no. 0214 and see also, Fig. 7.
Regarding independent claim 8, Huang teaches “A wireless communication method, comprising:
transmitting a carrier signal to a terminal device, so that the terminal device transmits a back scattering signal to a carrier transmitting device according to the carrier signal (Fig. 1, backscatter device receives signal transmitted by an exciter; see also, Fig. 4, backscatter device receives first excitation signal at step S110; paragraph no. 0102, “S110: An exciter sends a first excitation signal to a backscatter device, and the backscatter device receives the first excitation signal from the exciter”; Fig. 1, backscatter device transmits signal to the receiver; see also, Fig. 4, step S130, backscatter device transmits a backscattering signal to the receiver; note that the exciter and the receiver are part of one node (see paragraph no. 0098); paragraph no. 0119, “S130: The backscatter device sends a backscattered signal of the first excitation signal to the receiver based on the first resource, and the receiver may receive, on a second resource, the backscattered signal sent by the backscatter device”);
wherein a frequency-domain resource characteristic of the back scattering signal is related to a frequency-domain resource of the carrier signal” (paragraph no. 0119, “S130: The backscatter device sends a backscattered signal of the first excitation signal to the receiver based on the first resource, and the receiver may receive, on a second resource, the backscattered signal sent by the backscatter device”; see also, paragraph no. 0099, “In frequency domain, the backscattered signal obtained through modulation is equivalent to shifting a spectrum of the excitation signal by Δƒ=1/T, and the spectrum is shown in FIG. 3. To be specific, the exciter sends the excitation signal to the backscatter device on a frequency ƒc. The backscatter device sends the backscattered signal to the receiver on a frequency ƒc+Δƒ”).
Regarding the newly amended claim limitation “wherein the frequency-domain resource of the carrier signal is related to a bandwidth of a channel on which the back scattering signal is located” of claim 8, Huang appears to implicitly teach this limitation, see, e.g., paragraph no. 0016, “the first excitation signal is a pseudo-random signal, and the pseudo-random signal may occupy specific bandwidth. This helps a receiver to perform detection. In addition, bandwidth of the pseudo-random signal may be constrained, and bandwidth of the backscattered signal of the first excitation signal may be further constrained, so that it can be ensured that a backscatter communication system does not affect another communications system.” The bandwidth of the backscattered signal is implicitly included in a bandwidth of a channel on which the backscattered signal is transmitted. Hence, the frequency resource of the first excitation signal must be related to a bandwidth of the channel on which the backscattered signal is located/transmitted.
Reynolds explicitly teaches the newly amended claim limitation of claim 8, see Figs. 1 and 6A-6C and paragraph nos. 0112, 0137, 0143 which disclose that the frequency resource (e.g., channel 38 of Fig. 6A) of a carrier signal (source signal shown in Fig. 6A and 130 of Fig. 1) is related to a bandwidth of a channel (e.g., channel 37, Fig. 6B) on which the backscattered signal (backscattered signal 135 of Fig. 1 and either zero (Fig. 6B) or one (Fig. 6C) associated with channel 37) is located.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang by incorporating the teachings of Reynolds to facilitate the transmission and reception of a backscattered signal between backscatter devices and wireless communication devices, as suggested by Reynolds in the abstract.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Huang teaches “wherein the carrier signal comprises N carrier signals, N being a positive integer; and the back scattering signal comprises M back scattering signals, M being a positive integer” (see paragraph no. 0099: the “N” and “M” are each interpreted as an integer of 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Huang teaches “wherein there is a correspondence between the N carrier signals and the M back scattering signals” (see paragraph no. 0099 and especially, “The backscatter device sends the backscattered signal to the receiver on a frequency fc +∆f”).
Regarding claim 20, Huang teaches “A carrier transmitting device, comprising: a processor and a memory for storing a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory, to perform the method according to claim 8” (Fig. 4, exciter and receiver, and paragraph no. 0098 which discloses that these two devices may be located on one node; see Fig. 8 and paragraph nos. 0212, 0221, 0223 which disclose a processor and memory for the one node including the exciter and receiver).
Regarding claim 22, Huang and Reynolds do not teach “wherein when N is greater than 1, frequency- domain resources on which the N carrier signals are located are non-continuous.” Huang teaches one carrier signal and not two. However, these limitations are obvious. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang and Reynolds by using at least two carrier signals whose frequencies are non-continuous to increase the bandwidth of the backscattering system and also, reduce interference between the two carrier signals.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Reynolds as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 and further in view of Feuersaenger et al., US 2022/0408372, (“Feuersaenger”).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Huang does not teach but Feuersaenger teaches “wherein the frequency-domain resource on which the carrier signal is located is non-continuous” (see paragraph nos. 0010, 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang and Reynolds by incorporating the teachings of Feuersaenger to provide a larger frequency diversity gain than localized transmission, as suggested by Feuersaenger in paragraph no. 0013.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 16, Huang teaches “wherein the frequency-domain resource of the carrier signal is predefined” (the “predefined” alternative limitation is taught by Huang – see Fig. 3 and paragraph no. 0099 which disclose that the excitation signal has a pre-defined frequency of fc).
Regarding claim 21, Huang does not teach “wherein the frequency-domain resource of the carrier signal is indicated by the carrier transmitting device, or indicated by a third party device.” However, this is an obvious modification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang, Reynolds, and Feuersaenger by having the frequency fc indicated by the exciter to facilitate the reception of the carrier signal by the backscatter device.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Reynolds, and Feuersaenger as applied to claims 2, 9, 16 above, and further in view of Casaccia et al., US 7,957,351, (“Casaccia”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 17, Huang does not teach but Casaccia teaches “transmitting capability information of a terminal device to the carrier transmitting device; wherein the frequency-domain resource of the carrier signal is related to the capability information of the terminal device” (col. 5, lines 7-14, 54-63) as recited in claim 6 and similarly recited in claims 13 and 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang, Reynolds, and Feuersaenger by incorporating the teachings of Casaccia to enable the UE to inform the receiving device of its capabilities, thereby improving communications between the two devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations recited in each claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
