DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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 43 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 31, 33, 35, 38-41, and 43 recite “comprising means” instead of “further comprising means.”
Claim 43 recites “37comprising.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because they are directed to a single means claim. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for” in claims 26-30, 34, and 44.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-30, 34, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites “determining one of a first known sequence and at least one second known sequence.” It is unclear if this means determining one total sequence of a set composed of a first known sequence and at least one second known sequence, or if it means determining one of a first known sequence and also determining at least one second known sequence. Claims 27-36 depend on claim 26 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 36 recites the limitations “the determined one of the first known tail sequence and the at least one second known tail sequence.” There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 26-28, 31,33-34, 37-38, 40-41, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ji (US 20200053660 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Ji discloses:
“An apparatus comprising means for, at a network: determining one of a first known sequence and at least one second known sequence based on a value of a power metric associated with the respective known sequence; providing configuration information indicative of the determined known sequence to a user equipment; and” ([¶ 0056]: “Step S301: An access network device sends signaling to a terminal device, that is, the terminal device receives the signaling sent by the access network device.”; [¶ 0067]: “When the access network device determines, based on the PHR, that the terminal device is in a center of a cell, the terminal device shall use a CP-OFDM technology. In this case, the terminal device has a relatively low requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a first sequence type with more orthogonal sequences and a larger PAPR. When the access network device determines, based on the PHR, that the terminal device is at an edge of a cell, the terminal device shall use an SC-OFDM technology. In this case, the terminal device has a relatively high requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a second sequence type with better orthogonality, fewer orthogonal sequences, and a smaller PAPR.”)
“receiving uplink transmission from the user equipment using the determined known sequence, wherein the uplink transmission comprises a waveform comprising the determined known sequence, wherein the waveform is a time domain signal.” ([¶¶ 0059-0060]: “Step S304: The terminal device sends the uplink reference signal by using the transmit power of the uplink reference signal. In this embodiment of this application, considering that the terminal device may transmit the uplink reference signal by using different technologies in different cases and each technology has a corresponding sequence type of the uplink reference signal, the transmit power of the uplink reference signal is determined based on the sequence type of the uplink reference signal, so as to improve uplink reference signal transmission reliability.”)
Regarding claim 27, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “wherein the power metric comprises at least one of peak to average power ratio, maximum power reduction, additional maximum power reduction and output power backoff.” ([¶ 0066]: “In this case, the terminal device has a relatively low requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a first sequence type with more orthogonal sequences and a larger PAPR. When the indication information indicates that the transmit power is limited, for example, the terminal device is at an edge of a cell, the terminal device shall use an SC-OFDM technology. In this case, the terminal device has a relatively high requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a second sequence type with better orthogonality, fewer orthogonal sequences, and a smaller PAPR.”)
Regarding claim 28, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “wherein the value of the power metric associated with the first known sequence is lower than the value of the power metric associated with the at least one second known sequence.” ([¶ 0067]: “…when the PHR of the terminal device is less than a preset PHR threshold, it indicates that lower power may be used…”)
Regarding claim 31, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “comprising means for receiving information from the user equipment for use in determining the one of the first known sequence and at least one second known sequence.” ([¶ 0067]: “In yet another implementation, the terminal device may report a transmit power capacity of the terminal device in a capacity reporting process. For example, the terminal device reports power headroom information (for example, PHR) of the terminal device.”)
Regarding claim 33, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “determining one of the first known sequence and the at least one second known sequence based on a power headroom report received from the user equipment.” ([¶ 0067]: “In yet another implementation, the terminal device may report a transmit power capacity of the terminal device in a capacity reporting process. For example, the terminal device reports power headroom information (for example, PHR) of the terminal device.”)
Regarding claim 34, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “wherein the first known sequence uses a first modulation and the at least one second known sequence uses a second modulation.” ([¶ 0107]: “Therefore, for the first sequence type and the second sequence type that have different demodulation and interference features, a power adjustment and control factor may be introduced.”)
Regarding claim 37, Ji discloses:
“An apparatus comprising means for, at a user equipment: receiving configuration information indicative of a known sequence from a network; and” ([¶ 0056]: “Step S301: An access network device sends signaling to a terminal device, that is, the terminal device receives the signaling sent by the access network device.”; [¶ 0067]: “When the access network device determines, based on the PHR, that the terminal device is in a center of a cell, the terminal device shall use a CP-OFDM technology. In this case, the terminal device has a relatively low requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a first sequence type with more orthogonal sequences and a larger PAPR. When the access network device determines, based on the PHR, that the terminal device is at an edge of a cell, the terminal device shall use an SC-OFDM technology. In this case, the terminal device has a relatively high requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a second sequence type with better orthogonality, fewer orthogonal sequences, and a smaller PAPR.”)
“providing uplink transmission to the network, wherein the uplink transmission comprises a waveform comprising the known sequence, wherein the waveform is a time domain signal.” ([¶¶ 0059-0060]: “Step S304: The terminal device sends the uplink reference signal by using the transmit power of the uplink reference signal. In this embodiment of this application, considering that the terminal device may transmit the uplink reference signal by using different technologies in different cases and each technology has a corresponding sequence type of the uplink reference signal, the transmit power of the uplink reference signal is determined based on the sequence type of the uplink reference signal, so as to improve uplink reference signal transmission reliability.”)
Regarding claim 38, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “comprising means for selecting the known sequence from a preconfigured table based on the configuration information, wherein the preconfigured table comprises at least two known sequences with different properties for at least one of power metric, sequence length and modulation.” ([¶ 0019]: “There is a correspondence between the sequence type of the uplink reference signal and each of the scrambling manner of the signaling, the time-frequency resource occupied by the signaling, and the format of the signaling. For example, the correspondence may be expressed in a form of a table. The terminal device can effectively determine the sequence type of the uplink reference signal by searching the table.”; [¶ 0107]: “Therefore, for the first sequence type and the second sequence type that have different demodulation and interference features, a power adjustment and control factor may be introduced.”)
Regarding claim 40, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “comprising means for determining transmit power for the uplink transmission based on the known sequence.” ([¶¶ 0059-0060]: “Step S304: The terminal device sends the uplink reference signal by using the transmit power of the uplink reference signal. In this embodiment of this application, considering that the terminal device may transmit the uplink reference signal by using different technologies in different cases and each technology has a corresponding sequence type of the uplink reference signal, the transmit power of the uplink reference signal is determined based on the sequence type of the uplink reference signal, so as to improve uplink reference signal transmission reliability.”)
Regarding claim 41, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “comprising means for providing information from the user equipment to the network for use in determining one of a first known sequence and at least one second known sequence.” ([¶ 0067]: “In yet another implementation, the terminal device may report a transmit power capacity of the terminal device in a capacity reporting process. For example, the terminal device reports power headroom information (for example, PHR) of the terminal device.”)
Regarding claim 44, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “wherein the known sequence is determined by the network based on a value of a power metric associated with the known sequence.” ([¶ 0066]: “In this case, the terminal device has a relatively low requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a first sequence type with more orthogonal sequences and a larger PAPR. When the indication information indicates that the transmit power is limited, for example, the terminal device is at an edge of a cell, the terminal device shall use an SC-OFDM technology. In this case, the terminal device has a relatively high requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a second sequence type with better orthogonality, fewer orthogonal sequences, and a smaller PAPR.”)
Claim 45 is substantially similar to claim 37, with the differenced amounting to that claim 37 is directed towards an apparatus and claim 45 is directed towards a method. Thus, claim 37 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 45.
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) 29-30 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US 20200053660 A1) in view of Pawar (US 20190158331 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “wherein the waveform comprises a … discrete Fourier Transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing waveform or a single carrier frequency domain equalization waveform.” ([¶ 0050]: “A discrete Fourier transform (DFT) spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing DFT-S-OFDM technology is one of SC-OFDM technologies.”)
Ji does not explicitly disclose “known tail.”
However, Pawar discloses the missing feature “known tail.” ([¶ 0023]: “The GI sequence or ZT sequence at the end of the ZT DFT-s-OFDM can provide an additional known sequence to allow efficient time/frequency tracking without an increase in tracking signal overhead, and the GI/ZT sequence can allow for flexible adjustment of a delay spread based on channel conditions without changing a hardware Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Ji and Pawar, to modify the technique as disclosed by Ji, to utilize known tail sequences as disclosed by Pawar. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ji with Pawar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 30, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji does not explicitly disclose “wherein a length of the first known sequence is longer than a length of the at least one second known sequence.”
However, Pawar discloses the missing feature “wherein a length of the first known sequence is longer than a length of the at least one second known sequence.” ([¶ 0023]: “In other words, since the GI/ZT sequence can be part of a FFT window, a length of the GI/ZT sequence can be flexibly adapted to effective channel delay spreads caused by different beamforming techniques, and without changing a symbol duration.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Ji and Pawar, to modify the technique as disclosed by Ji, to utilize flexible tail sequences as disclosed by Pawar. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ji with Pawar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 39, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji does not explicitly disclose “comprising means for applying low-pass filtering to the known sequence.”
However, Pawar discloses the missing feature “comprising means for applying low-pass filtering to the known sequence.” ([¶ 0077]: “The amplifier circuitry 1306b may be configured to amplify the down-converted signals and the filter circuitry 1306c may be a low-pass filter (LPF) or band-pass filter (BPF) configured to remove unwanted signals from the down-converted signals to generate output baseband signals.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Ji and Pawar, to modify the technique as disclosed by Ji, to utilize a low-pass filter as disclosed by Pawar. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ji with Pawar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 32 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US 20200053660 A1) in view of Lee (US 20210281455 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji does not explicitly disclose “wherein the information comprises an indication of a requested known sequence.”
However, Lee discloses the missing feature “wherein the information comprises an indication of a requested known sequence..” ([¶ 0100]: “For example, if the PH value is smaller than a threshold, the UE may request the BS to switch the current waveform. If the PH value, which was greater than the threshold, becomes smaller than the threshold, the UE may report it to the BS and the BS may configure the DFT-s-OFDM waveform for the UE through DCI. On the contrary, if the PH value, which was smaller than the threshold, becomes greater than the threshold, the UE may report it to the BS and the BS may configure the CP-OFDM waveform for the UE through DCI.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Ji and Lee, to modify the technique as disclosed by Ji, to request a sequence as disclosed by Lee. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ji with Lee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 42, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji does not explicitly disclose “wherein the information comprises an indication of a requested known sequence.”
However, Lee discloses the missing feature “wherein the information comprises an indication of a requested known sequence.” ([¶ 0100]: “For example, if the PH value is smaller than a threshold, the UE may request the BS to switch the current waveform. If the PH value, which was greater than the threshold, becomes smaller than the threshold, the UE may report it to the BS and the BS may configure the DFT-s-OFDM waveform for the UE through DCI. On the contrary, if the PH value, which was smaller than the threshold, becomes greater than the threshold, the UE may report it to the BS and the BS may configure the CP-OFDM waveform for the UE through DCI.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Ji and Lee, to modify the technique as disclosed by Ji, to request a sequence as disclosed by Lee. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ji with Lee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 35-36 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (US 20200053660 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20230051510 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji does not explicitly disclose “comprising means for receiving an indication from the user equipment of at least one of supported known sequence lengths, supported known sequences and supported waveform shaping.”
However, Zhang discloses the missing feature “comprising means for receiving an indication from the user equipment of at least one of supported known sequence lengths, supported known sequences and supported waveform shaping.” ([¶ 0108]: “The UE 120 may indicate whether the UE 120 supports tail suppression signal generation or reception.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Ji and Zhang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Ji, to utilize indicating supported sequences as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ji with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 36, Ji in view of Zhang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji further discloses “wherein the configuration information comprises a parameter indicative of the known sequence length or the determined one of the first known tail sequence and the at least one second known tail sequence.” ([¶ 0067]: “When the access network device determines, based on the PHR, that the terminal device is in a center of a cell, the terminal device shall use a CP-OFDM technology. In this case, the terminal device has a relatively low requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a first sequence type with more orthogonal sequences and a larger PAPR. When the access network device determines, based on the PHR, that the terminal device is at an edge of a cell, the terminal device shall use an SC-OFDM technology. In this case, the terminal device has a relatively high requirement on a PAPR, and therefore the access network device may adaptively configure, for the terminal device, a second sequence type with better orthogonality, fewer orthogonal sequences, and a smaller PAPR.”)
Regarding claim 43, Ji discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Ji does not explicitly disclose “comprising means for providing an indication from the user equipment to the network of at least one of supported known sequence lengths, supported known sequences and supported waveform shaping.”
However, Zhang discloses the missing feature “comprising means for providing an indication from the user equipment to the network of at least one of supported known sequence lengths, supported known sequences and supported waveform shaping.” ([¶ 0108]: “The UE 120 may indicate whether the UE 120 supports tail suppression signal generation or reception.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Ji and Zhang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Ji, to utilize indicating supported sequences as disclosed by Zhang. The motivation for doing so is that it allows for improved flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ji with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights