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 .
Claim Objections
As to claim 1, line 3, the phrase “logic at least one of coupled to or integrated within the receiver” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 1, lines 3-4, the phrase “the logic is to perform operations comprising:” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required. The examiners suggests amending the phrase to “wherein the logic is to perform operations comprising:”.
As to claim 15, line 5, the phrase “logic at least one of coupled to or integrated within the receiver” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
As to claim 15, lines 5-6, the phrase “the logic is to perform operations comprising:” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required. The examiners suggests amending the phrase to “wherein the logic is to perform operations comprising:”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mallya et al. (hereafter referred to as “Mallya”), U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0007488 A1.
As to claim 1, Mallya discloses a wireless device (¶¶ [0030], [0037], and [0044]) comprising:
a receiver (¶ [0039]); and
logic at least one of coupled to or integrated within the receiver, the logic is to perform operations (¶ [0065]; Claim 16) comprising:
receiving, from a transmitter, a signal (¶¶ [0017] through [0019]);
generating, based on an expected signal impulse response, a first expected signal (¶ [0034]);
generating, based on an attack pattern impulse response, an attack pattern (¶¶ [0026], [0029], and [0036]); and
determining, based on the signal, the first expected signal, and the attack pattern, whether an attack is present in the signal (Abstract; ¶¶ [0021] and [0022]).
As to claim 8, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as those given for claim 1 above.
As to claim 15, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as those given for claim 1 above. Furthermore, Mallya discloses an antenna (¶¶ [0001] and [0039]).
As to claim 2, Mallya discloses wherein the first expected signal is generated using the expected signal impulse response and expected symbols (¶¶ [0026], [0039], and [0043]).
As to claims 9 and 16, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as those given for claim 2 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the invention as claimed. This is not a statement that any one limitation in a vacuum is allowable subject matter, but rather that the combination of the claim limitations as a whole are not obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Whipple whose telephone number is 571-270-1244. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays from 9:50 AM to 3:50 PM ET and Saturdays from 9:50 AM to 7:50 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, Joon Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/Brian Whipple/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2447
8/5/26
Prosecution Insights