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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 10, 2024 has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
FIGs. 1, 3A, 3B, 4, 7, 9A and 9B include text that does not measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height thereby failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p);
in FIG. 2, the examiner suggests changing “PROCESSOR 202” to “PROCESSOR(S) 202” (see paragraph [0055], line 6); and
in FIG. 8, “(ST)” in step 808 should be “(St)” (see paragraph [0087], line 7).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “300” (see paragraph [0070]); and “100” (see paragraphs [0073], [0077]-[0079], [0088] and [00109]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “310” in FIG. 3B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because on line 3, “up sampled” should be “up-sampled”. 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:
in paragraph [0008], line 3, “an” should be deleted;
in paragraph [0009], line 2, “Communication” should be “communication”;
in paragraph [0030], “100” on lines 2 and 4, respectively, should be “100A” (see FIG. 1);
in paragraph [0033], line 9, “said” should be deleted;
in paragraph [0043], it appears that “&” should be deleted;
in paragraph [0048], line 3, “said” should be deleted;
in paragraph [0048], line 4, “said” should be “the”;
in paragraph [0052], “100” on lines 6 and 7, respectively, should be “100A” (see FIG. 1);
in paragraph [0054], “100” on lines 3 and 5, respectively, should be “100A” (see FIG. 1);
in paragraph [0055], “100” on lines 2, 5 and 12, respectively, should be “100B” (see FIG. 2);
in paragraph [0055], line 4, “said” should be deleted;
in paragraph [0059], line 1, “up sampler 102” should be “up sampler 104” (see FIG 2.);
in paragraph [0060], line 1, “module106” should be “module 106”;
in paragraph [0063], “100” on lines 6 and 8, respectively, should be “100B” (see FIG. 2);
in paragraph [0062], line 1, “communication module 208” should be “communication unit 208” (see FIG. 2);
in paragraph [0066], line 2, “frequency up conversion” should be “frequency up converter” in order to be consistent with the drawings;
in paragraph [0069], line 3, “a” should be inserted before “frequency” and “signal signal” should be “signal”;
in paragraph [0069], line 6, “processors to configure” should be “processors configure”;
in paragraph [0069], line 7, “at least or” should be “at least one or”;
in paragraph [0069], “LUTs 302” on lines 8 and 9, respectively, should be “LUTs 306” or “FIFO BANK 302” (see FIG. 3A);
in paragraph [0069], line 8, “said” should be deleted;
in paragraph [0069], line 10, there should be a period at the end of the line;
in paragraph [0070], line 8, “LUTs 304” should be “LUTs 306” (see FIG. 3A);
in paragraph [0070], line 12, “LUTs 302” should be “LUTs 306” (see FIG. 3A);
in paragraph [0072], line 2, “FIFOs” should be “FIFO”;
in paragraph [0073], line 2, “FIFOs” should be “FIFO”;
in paragraph [0073], line 3, “LUTs” should be “LUT”;
in paragraph [0074], line 6, “counters 306” should be “counters 304” (see FIG. 3);
in paragraph [0080], line 6, “counters 304” should be “counter 304” (see FIG. 3B);
in paragraph [0080], line 9, “(St)” should be “S(t)” (see FIG. 3B);
in paragraph [0083], line 4, the semi-colon should be a period;
in paragraph [0084], line 2, the comma should be deleted;
in paragraph [0089], “For Example: If” on lines 4 and 7, respectively, should be “For example: if”;
in paragraph [0096], line 5, “For Example: Consider” should be “For example: consider”;
in paragraph [0097], line 1, “If” should be “if”;
in paragraph [00105], line 7, the examiner suggests inserting “wherein” after “samples,”; and
in paragraph [00114], line 3, it appears that “microcode, a” should be “and microcode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 8, the examiner suggests changing “in digital domain for generating” to “in a digital domain to generate”;
in claim 1, line 10, “up sampled” should be “up-sampled” (see claim 1, line 8);
in claim 1, line 11, “pulse shaped symbols” should be “pulse shaped baseband symbols” (see claim 1, line 14);
in claim 1, line 14, “the” should be inserted before “digital domain”;
in claim 1, line 15, the examiner suggests changing “for generating” to “to generate”;
in claim 1, line 18, “digital domain to analog domain” should be “the digital domain to an analog domain”;
in claim 2, line 4, “a” should be inserted before “regulatory”;
in claim 4, line 1, it appears that “the one or more processors is” should be “the one or more hardware processors are” (see claim 1, line 3);
in claim 4, line 8, “the” should be inserted before “digital domain”;
in claim 5, line 2, “the” should be inserted before “digital domain”;
in claim 6, line 3, “being” should be “is”;
in claim 7, it appears that “wherein the pulse shaping module comprises the filter” on line 1 should be deleted since it duplicates claim 6, lines 1-2;
in claim 8, it appears that “wherein the pulse shaping module comprises the filter” on line 1 should be deleted since it duplicates claim 6, lines 1-2;
in claim 8, line 2, “configured” should be “further configured” (see claim 7, line 2);
in claim 8, line 4, “pulse ,” should be “pulse,” and “comply” should be “complies”;
in claim 14, line 2, the examiner suggests changing “in digital domain for generating” to “in a digital domain to generate”;
in claim 14, line 4, “up sampled” should be “up-sampled” (see claim 14, lines 2-3);
in claim 14, line 7, “the” should be inserted before “digital domain”;
in claim 14, line 8, the examiner suggests changing “for generating” to “to generate”;
in claim 14, line 11, “digital domain to analog domain” should be “the digital domain to an analog domain”;
in claim 16, line 1, “wherein generating the frequency” should be “wherein up-converting, by the processor, the frequency of the pulse-shaped symbols in digital domain to the desired frequency band to generate the frequency”;
in claim 16, line 12, “the” should be inserted before “digital domain”;
in claim 16, line 13, the examiner suggests changing “for generating” to “to generate”;
in claim 17, line 6, “Look up Tables” should be “look up tables (LUTs)”;
in claim 17, lines 8-9, “store the carrier waveform” should be “storing the sampled carrier waveform”;
in claim 17, line 10, “the pulse-shaped” should be “a pulse-shaped”; and
dependent claim(s) are objected to under the same ground(s) 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 1-13, 16 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 1, it is unclear how the “plurality of modules” on line 6 comprise the “digital to analog converter” on lines 17-19. The “plurality of modules” is in the form of programmable instructions (see claim 1, lines 5-6) but a “digital to analog converter” is hardware or structural component. It doesn’t make sense that the programmable instructions comprise a structural component. FIG. 2 shows the ”digital to analog converter” and the “communication module” on lines 17-21 as being external to the “memory comprising a plurality of modules…” (see “Memory 204” in FIG. 2) so the examiner suggests drafting/amending the claim to clarify that the “digital to analog converter” and the “communication module” on lines 17-21 do not comprise the “plurality of modules” (see line 6). Furthermore, the examiner suggests changing “communication module” on line 20 to “communication unit” in order to be consistent with FIG. 2.
Similarly, with regard to claim 3, it is unclear how “the pulse shaping module” comprises the limitations recited on lines 2-9. The “pulse shaping module” is in the form of programmable instructions (see claim 1, lines 5-6) but the recited limitations are seem to be directed to hardware or structural components. It doesn’t make sense for programmable instructions to comprise structural components.
With regard to claim 4, it is unclear how the configuration of the “one or more processors” to perform the recited steps relates to the respective modules that comprise the “plurality of modules” in claim 1. In claim 1, the “one or more hardware processors” execute the modules of programmable instructions but in claim 4, the “one or more processors” are configured to perform the recited steps wherein the scope of the “one or more processors” in claim 4 is not limited to the execution of programmable instructions.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the “frequency up converted pulse shaped signal based on the sampling frequency and the symbol rate” in claim 4, lines 9-10 relates to the “frequency up converted pulse shaped waveform based on a sampling frequency and a symbol rate” in claim 1, lines 15-16.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the input data stream” in lines 4 and 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “frequency up-converted pulse shaped samples” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “frequency up converted pulse shaped waveform” on line 15 but not “frequency up-converted pulse shaped samples”.
With regard to claim 5, it is unclear how the configuration of the “one or more processors” to perform the steps on lines 3-11 relates to the respective modules that comprise the “plurality of modules” in claim 1. In claim 1, the “one or more hardware processors” execute the modules of programmable instructions but in claim 5, the “one or more processors” are configured to perform the recited steps wherein the scope of the “one or more processors” in claim 5 is not limited to the execution of programmable instructions.
In claim 5, line 10, it is unclear if the “frequency up converted pulse shaped signal” should be “the frequency up-converted pulse shaped samples” (see claim 5, lines 1-2) or “the frequency up-converted pulse shaped waveform” (see claim 1, line 15).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the pre-computed values” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claims 6-8, it is unclear how the “pulse shaping module” in the respective claims comprises the “filter”. The “pulse shaping module” is in the form of programmable instructions but a “filter” is hardware or structural component. It doesn’t make sense that programmable instructions comprise a structural component.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the transmitter side” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the receiver” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear how the receiver relates to the limitations in claim 1.
Claims 11-13, respectively recites “the transmitter” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the respective claims. Furthermore, it is unclear how the transmitter in the respective claims relates to the limitations in claim 1.
With regard to claim 13, it is unclear how the position of low power DAC (see “preceded by a lower power DAC” on line 2) relates to the class AB amplifier and the high capacitive load. Does the “lower power DAC” precede the high capacitive load or the class AB amplifier? Based on FIG. 3B, it appears that the “lower power DAC” should precede the “class AB amplifier.”
With regard to claim 13, interpreting “the pulse shaped waveform” on lines 2-3 as referring the “frequency up converted pulse shaped waveform” in claim 1, line 15, it is unclear how the “waveform” generated by the “frequency up conversion module” (see claim 1, lines 13-16) differs from the “waveform” created by the “class AB amplifier” (see claim 13, lines 1-3) since it appears that both of these components provide the “pulse shaped waveform.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the input data stream” in lines 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “generating the frequency up-converted pulse shaped samples in digital domain” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites “up-converting… for generating a frequency up converted pulse shaped waveform” (see lines 7-8) but not “generating the frequency up-converted pulse shaped samples…”
In claim 17, line 13, it is unclear if “the frequency up converted pulse shaped signal” should be “the frequency up-converted pulse shaped samples” (see claim 17, lines 1-2) or “the frequency up converted pulse shaped waveform” (see claim 14, lines 7-8 and claim 15, lines 1-2).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the pre-computed values” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claim(s) are rejected under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are allowable if re-written to overcome the claim objections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art of record does not teach or suggests a communication method comprising up-converting, by a processor, a frequency of the pulse shaped symbols in the digital domain to a desired frequency band to generate a frequency up converted pulse shaped waveform based on a sampling frequency and a symbol rate as recited in claim 14, lines 7-9 in combination with up-sampling as recited in claim 14, lines 2-3; pulse shaping as recited in claim 14, lines (4-6); generating a reference analog signal as recited in claim 14, lines 10-11; and communicating via a driver capable of coupling signals to a human body as recited in claim 14, lines 12-15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US Publication No. 2010/0040114 A1) and Lim et al. (US Patent No. 8,340,158 B2) disclose human body communication systems but each reference discloses a pulse shaping filter without the other recited limitations; and
Liu et al. (US Patent No. 10,205,522 B2) and Fettweis et al. (EP 2200244 A1) disclose transmitters that include an up-sampler, a pulse shaper, a frequency up-converter and a digital to analog converter but neither reference discloses a frequency up-converter that up-converts a frequency of the pulse shaped symbols in the digital domain to a desired frequency band to generate a frequency up converted pulse shaped waveform based on a sampling frequency and a symbol rate.
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