DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on March 28, 2021. Claims 1-20 are pending. Of such, Claims 1-11 represent a device and Claims 12-19 represent a non-transitory computer-readable medium and claim 20 represents a method directed to reduction of time-domain correlation for secure sounding signal.
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
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
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.
Claim 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the main pulse" which is dependent on claim 8. However, claim 8 does not reference “a main pulse”, a main pulse is referenced in claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mcelroy et al. (WO 2017134310), hereinafter referred to as Mcelroy.
Regarding Claim 1, Mcelroy discloses:
A device, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to (In ¶ 20, Mcelroy discloses “In accordance with a preferred embodiment of our invention, we provide a method for use in a wireless communication system comprising a transmitter and a receiver.”): generate a sequence of pseudo-random symbols associated with a sounding signal to be transmitted to a first station device (In ¶ 22, Mcelroy discloses “In one other embodiment, the first process pseudo-randomly generates, as a function of a seed, a first code set of m codes, wherein the first code set is substantially group complementary.”); apply a modifier to the sequence of pseudo-random symbols (In ¶ 23, Mcelroy discloses “the first process is iterative, and, in each loop, the first process first develops a set of m metric correlations by auto-correlating each of the m codes comprising the first code set”); generate a secure sounding signal from the modified sequence of pseudo-random symbols (In ¶ 24, Mcelroy discloses “this process then develops a metric by accumulating at least a selected portion of the m metric correlations, the metric being selected to measure the degree to which the first code set is group complementary”, wherein the examiner interprets the addition of the pseudo-random symbols with the modification of the sequence as a secure sounding signal); and send the secure sounding signal to a first station device (In ¶ 54, Mcelroy discloses “The final code-set, C™, comprises the CLASS code-set that the transmitter will transmit to the receiver.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Mcelroy discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the modifier is a time-domain filter (In ¶ 54, Mcelroy discloses “In a second embodiment, we perform channel estimation using what we refer to as a cyphered low auto-correlation sum set ("CLASS"). ”)
Regarding Claim 4, Mcelroy discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the modifier reduces time-domain correlation of the secure sounding signal for a given bandwidth (In ¶ 54, Mcelroy discloses “In a second embodiment, we perform channel estimation using what we refer to as a cyphered low auto-correlation sum set ("CLASS"). ”)
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having functionality corresponding to the device of Claims 1, 2 and 4, respectively, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 is directed to a method having functionality corresponding to the device of Claim 1, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
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.
Claims 3, 6, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcelroy et al. (WO 2017134310), hereinafter referred to as Mcelroy, in view of Berggren et al. (US 20230128676), hereinafter referred to as Berggren.
Regarding Claim 3, Mcelroy discloses the limitations of claim 2.
However, Mcelroy does not explicitly disclose the use of a linear time-domain filter.
Berggren discloses:
The device of claim 2, wherein using the time-domain filter is linear filtering and not circular filtering. (In ¶ 217, Berggren discloses “A chirp may have a linear time varying frequency, which enables a modulation symbol to be transmitted over the whole bandwidth of the signal and over the whole duration of the chirp, which renders in both time and frequency diversity effects”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mcelroy’s approach by utilizing Berggren’s approach of a linear time domain filter as the motivation would be to improve the efficiency of transmission of the signals between the device and receiver (see Berggren, ¶ 20).
Regarding Claim 6, Mcelroy discloses the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mcelroy does not explicitly disclose the use of a frequency domain mask.
Berggren discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the modifier is a frequency-domain mask (In ¶ 19, Berggren discloses “According to an implementation form of the first aspect, the device may be further configured to transform the set of modulation symbols into a frequency domain.”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mcelroy’s approach by utilizing Berggren’s approach of using a frequency mask as the motivation would be to utilize the frequency mask in conjunction with the time domain filter to allow for an efficient transmission of signals (see Berggren, ¶ 19).
Claims 14 and 17 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having functionality corresponding to the device of Claims 3 and 6, respectively, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 5, 7, 8, 10, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcelroy et al. (WO 2017134310), hereinafter referred to as Mcelroy, in view of Liu et al. (US 20190260621), hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding Claim 5, Mcelroy discloses the limitations with respect to claim 4.
However, Mcelroy does not explicitly disclose no direct current.
Liu discloses:
wherein a reduction of time-domain correlation is based on a time-domain impulse response of the modifier having minimal or no direct current (DC) component (In ¶ 6, Liu discloses “Embodiments of the present application provide a reference signal configuration method and apparatus and a training field configuration method and apparatus, to obtain a reference signal with a zero direct current (DC) component, thereby facilitating channel estimation that is based on CE”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mcelroy’s approach by utilizing Liu’s approach of using no direct currents as the motivation would be to reduce the phase noise in the signal as they are modulated and modified to the receiver (see Liu, ¶ 71).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mcelroy and Liu disclose:
The device of claim 5, wherein a frequency-domain response of the modifier has smaller magnitudes at band edges than an average magnitude of the band (See Mcelroy, Figure 12, “Fig. 12 illustrates, in wave diagram form, the sum of auto -correlations of the CLASS code-set used to generate the waveform illustrated in Fig. 10;”)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mcelroy and Liu disclose:
The device of claim 7, wherein a magnitude of a frequency-domain response of the modifier comprises a peak or two peaks (See Mcelroy, Figure 12, “Fig. 12 illustrates, in wave diagram form, the sum of auto -correlations of the CLASS code-set used to generate the waveform illustrated in Fig. 10;”)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mcelroy and Liu disclose:
The device of claim 8, wherein a signal magnitude away from the main pulse quickly diminishes to minimal or zero. (See Mcelroy, Figure 12, “Fig. 12 illustrates, in wave diagram form, the sum of auto -correlations of the CLASS code-set used to generate the waveform illustrated in Fig. 10;”)
Claims 16, 18 and 19 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having functionality corresponding to the device of Claims 5, 7, 8 respectively, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcelroy et al. (WO 2017134310), hereinafter referred to as Mcelroy, in view of He et al. (US 20170257250), hereinafter referred to as He.
Regarding Claim 9, Mcelroy discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
However, Mcelroy does not disclose the filter properties as claimed.
He discloses:
wherein a time-domain impulse response of the modifier comprises a main pulse or two opposite main pulses (In ¶ 73, He discloses “FIG. 9 is a time domain response diagram of a pulse shaping function in an embodiment of the present invention”)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mcelroy’s approach by utilizing He’s approach of a pulse time domain response as the motivation would be to provide a single-carrier and multi-carrier compatible hybrid carrier mechanism utilizing MIMO communication which reduces interference between the carrier system and increase reliability of the communication system (see He, ¶ 64).
Regarding Claim 11, Mcelroy discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
However, Mcelroy does not disclose the filter properties as claimed.
He discloses:
wherein a sum of the sequence of pseudo-random symbols may equal zero for reducing a time-domain correlation of the secure sounding signal for a given bandwidth (In ¶ 73, He discloses “FIG. 9 is a time domain response diagram of a pulse shaping function in an embodiment of the present invention”, the majority of the graph represents the sequence equaling zero with the exception of the pulse)
One in ordinary skill in the art of cryptography would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mcelroy’s approach by utilizing He’s approach of a pulse time domain response as the motivation would be to provide a single-carrier and multi-carrier compatible hybrid carrier mechanism utilizing MIMO communication which reduces interference between the carrier system and increase reliability of the communication system (see He, ¶ 64).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lo et al. (US 20120163223) discloses a method for wireless communication utilizing a primary control signal that is transmitted through subcarriers to a receiver. The signal undergoes modifications in the time and frequency domain.
Berggren et al. (US 20170373812) discloses a transmitter capable to mapping a sequency to a time and frequency domain utilizing orthogonal frequency division multiplex.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADI H KOBROSLI whose telephone number is (571)272-1952. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at 571-272-3880. 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.
/SHADI H KOBROSLI/Examiner, Art Unit 2492 /RUPAL DHARIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2492