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 .
Status of claims
The preliminary amendment filed November 5, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-19 and 22-23 are pending.
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 November 5, 2024, July 28, 2025 and October 28, 2025 have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of each IDS is included with this Office Action.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
it exceeds 150 words in length; and
it should avoid phrases which can implied (e.g. “The embodiments of the present disclosure provide” on line 1).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 10, line 2, “In” should be “in”;
on page 11, line 18, “ejθi” should be “ejθi”; and
on page 13, line 10, “ejθi” should be “ejθi”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, lines 17-18, “the frequency domain resource block group” should be “the respective frequency domain resource block group”;
in claim 2, line 5, “other groups” should be “other groups of data sequences”;
in claim 3, line 3, “a” should be inserted before “target resource block”;
in claim 4, line 4, it appears that “a” should be inserted before “same bandwidth”;
in claim 4, line 8, “the” should be inserted before “same”;
in claim 6, line 2, “other resource blocks” should be “other resource blocks included in the target frequency domain resource block group” (see claim 3, lines 4-5);
in claim 9, line 1, “a” should be inserted before “number”;
in claim 13, line 1, “For” should be “for”;
in claim 13, line 2, “a” should be inserted before “zero frequency position” and “the” should be inserted before “first inverse”;
in claim 14, line 1, “a first inverse” should be “the first inverse”;
in claim 14, line 2, “various” should be “respective” (see claim 1, lines 13-14);
in claim 15, line 1 “a second inverse” should be “the second inverse”;
in claim 22, line 1, the comma should be deleted;
in claim 23, line 1, the comma after “device” should be deleted;
dependent claim(s) are objected to under the same ground as the claim(s) from which it depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 12 and 17 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.
With regard to claim 3, it is unclear how “the target frequency domain resource block group” on line 3 relates to “at least one target frequency domain resource block group” on line 2 since “at least one target frequency domain resource block group” on line 2 includes a plurality of “target frequency domain resource block groups” whereas “the target frequency domain resource block group” on line 3 is directed to a single “target frequency domain resource block group.” Based on the detailed description, the examiner suggests changing “at least one target frequency domain resource block group” on line 2 to “a target frequency domain resource block group” to overcome this rejection.
With regard to claim 10, it is unclear what is meant by “entirely equal” on line 3. The detailed description does not include the phrase “entirely equal” and it is unclear what constitutes “bandwidths” that are not “entirely” equal. The examiner suggests deleting “entirely” on line 3 to overcome this rejection.
With regard to claim 12, it is unclear whether the “corresponding zero frequency positions” correspond to the first inverse Fourier on line 1 or the different “frequency domain resource blocks” on line 2.
With regard to claim 17, it is unclear how “the frequency domain resource block group” on lines 2-3 relates to the “plurality of frequency domain resource block groups” in claim 1, lines 2-3. For example, it is unclear if “the frequency domain resource block group” in claim 17 is referring to a group in the “plurality frequency domain resource block group.”
Dependent claim(s) are rejected under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Patent No. 10,148,468 B2) in view of Shperling et al. (US Patent No. 9,209,889 B2).
With regard to claim 1, FIG. 1 of Hu et al. discloses the claimed invention including a method for transmitting data sequences comprising:
grouping sub bands to obtain a plurality of sub band groups (see SUB BAND GROUP 116AB, SUB BAND GROUP 116C, etc.);
executing for sub band group to obtain a plurality of groups of data: performing a first inverse Fourier transform on data corresponding to each sub band (e.g. IDFT UNIT 110A, IDFT UNIT 110B) to obtain a plurality of groups of first data sequences; and performing upsampling on the plurality of groups of first data sequences (e.g. 115A, 115B and 124A) to obtain a group of data sequences (e.g. output of 118AB or 124A) corresponding to the sub band block; and
transmitting the plurality of groups of data sequences (see column 1, lines 21-23).
However, Hu et al. does not disclose that the frequency domain signal provided to the respective sub bands (see FIG. 2) are frequency domain resource blocks comprising a corresponding number of subcarriers such that “frequency domain resource blocks” are grouped (per sub band) as recited. Shperling et al. discloses generating a frequency domain signal for a data signal wherein the frequency domain signal comprises subcarriers allocated to frequency domain resource blocks. (See FIGs. 9 and 10; column 8, line 65 – column 9, line 18; and column 9, lines 57-66) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Shperling et al. to provide the respective frequency domain signals to the respective sub band groups in Hu et al. to yield predictable results since the elements in Hu et al. performs the same function. Since the frequency domain signal comprises subcarriers allocated to frequency domain resource blocks, each of the sub bands in Hu et al. receive frequency domain resource blocks such that “grouping” or “executing” operations on the respective sub bands is effectively “group” or “executing” operations on the frequency domain resource blocks thereby reading on claim 1.
Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. does not teach that the subcarrier spacings with each of frequency domain resource block of the plurality of frequency domain resource block groups are equal and subcarrier spacings between respective ones of the plurality of the frequency domain resource block groups are equal. Since Hu et al. discloses that the architecture of FIG. 1 enables flexible OFDM parameter configuration including (see column 6, line 66 – column 7, line 23), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to establish the configuration of among carriers (e.g. the subcarrier spacings with each of frequency domain resource block of the plurality of frequency domain resource block groups are equal and subcarrier spacings between respective ones of the plurality of the frequency domain resource block groups are equal) based on communication or system standards/requirements since the details of the subcarrier spacings do not change the functionality of the respective components of the system.
With regard to claim 2, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention including performing a filtering operating on each group of data sequences (see Hu et al., 114A-114E in FIG. 1) wherein at least one group of data has a different filtering function when performing the filtering operation than other groups. (See Hu et al., column 7, lines 24-29)
With regard to claim 3, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a bandwidth of “a target resource block” not being equal to the bandwidth of other resource blocks included in the target frequency domain resource block group and the location of the “target resource block” as adjacent to a frequency domain resource block included in other frequency domain resource block groups as recited in claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a bandwidth of a particular resource block (i.e. a “target resource block”) to not be equal to the bandwidth of other resource blocks included in the same ”frequency domain resource block group” and the location of the “target resource block” to be adjacent to a frequency domain resource block of other frequency domain resource block groups based on the configuration/standards of the communication system.
With regard to claim 4, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the bandwidth of frequency domain resource blocks within each frequency domain resource block group, which are not adjacent to any other frequency domain resource block group, have a same bandwidth or that the frequency domain resource blocks in a frequency domain resource block group which are not adjacent to any other frequency domain resource block group have the same bandwidth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to designate the bandwidth of the frequency domain resource blocks as recited in claim 4 based on the configuration/standards of the communication system.
With regard to claim 6, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the bandwidth of the target resource block being less than the other resource blocks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the bandwidth of the target resource block to be less than the bandwidth of the other resource blocks based on the configuration/standards of the communication system.
With regard to claim 7, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the subcarriers corresponding to the target number of resource blocks are continuously distributed in a frequency domain. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distribute subcarriers corresponding to the target number of resource blocks continuously in the frequency domain for spectral efficiency and based on the configuration/standards of the communication system.
With regard to claim 8, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the frequency domain resource blocks in each frequency domain resource block group being continuously distributed in a frequency domain and the plurality of frequency domain resource block groups being continuously distributed in the frequency domain. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distribute frequency domain resource blocks in each frequency domain resource block group continuously in a frequency domain and distribute the plurality of frequency domain resource block groups continuously in the frequency domain for spectral efficiency and based on the configuration/standards of the communication system.
With regard to claim 11, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a zero frequency position of the first inverse Fourier transform being within range of frequency domain resource blocks in which the first inverse Fourier transform is currently performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the zero frequency position of the first inverse Fourier transform to be within range of frequency domain resource blocks in which the first inverse Fourier transform is currently performed in order for the inverse Fourier transform to properly process the input signal.
With regard to claim 12, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for when the first inverse Fourier transform is performed on different frequency domain resource blocks, corresponding zero frequency positions are different. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the zero frequency position differs for each first inverse Fourier transform performed on different frequency domain resource blocks so that the first inverse Fourier transform performed on a corresponding frequency domain resource block properly processes the input signal of the corresponding frequency domain resource block.
With regard to claim 13, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for at least one group of frequency domain resource block groups having a zero frequency position or zero subcarrier during the first Fourier transform operation located at one of the subcarriers within the frequency domain resource blocks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for at least one group of frequency domain resource block groups to have a zero frequency position or zero subcarrier during the first Fourier transform operation located at one of the subcarriers within the frequency domain resource blocks in order for the first inverse Fourier transform to properly process the input signal to the IDFT.
With regard to claim 14, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention including respectively performing the first inverse Fourier transform comprises: performing a Fourier transform on target data (see Shperling et al., 1016 in FIG. 10) and performing the first inverse Fourier transform on the target data on which the Fourier transform has been performed (see Hu et al., 110A-E in FIG. 1 or Shperling et al., 1020 in FIG. 10).
With regard to claim 18, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention including transmitting the plurality of groups of data sequences comprises: performing an addition operation on the plurality of groups of data sequences to obtain a group of time domain data sequences (see Hu et al., 104 and 126 in FIG. 1 wherein the output of 126 is a group of time domain data sequences since the IDFTs produce a time domain signal and the subsequent processing of the IDFTs outputs does not involve transformation to a frequency domain signal) and transmitting the group of time domain data sequences (see Hu et al., column 1, lines 21-23).
With regard to claim 19, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention including before performing the addition operation, the method comprises performing a filtering operation on each group of data sequences included in the plurality of groups of data sequences (see Hu et al., 124A-124E in FIG. 1).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Renfors et al. (US Patent No. 10,742,356 B2).
With regard to claim 22, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program that implements the method according to claim 1 when executed by a processor. Renfors et al. discloses using non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a computer program that implements a method when executed by a processor. (See column 20, lines 14-33 and column 23, lines 27-30) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program to implement the method of claim 1 when executed by a processor in order to facilitate implementation of the method with minimal hardware components.
With regard to claim 23, Hu et al. in view of Shperling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an electronic device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and run on the processor wherein when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the method according to claim 1 are implemented. Renfors et al. discloses a device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and run on the processor wherein when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of a method are implemented. (See column 19, line 54 – column 20, line 13 and column 20, lines 47-53) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and run on the processor wherein when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the method according to claim 1 are implemented in order to facilitate implementation of the method with minimal hardware components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 15 and 16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights