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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1- 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 3 respectively of U.S. Patent No. US 11184060 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 – 3 of the instant application are wholly contained in the corresponding claims of US 11184060 B2.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenne et al. (US 20130083867) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20160294417).
Regarding claim 1, Frenne discloses a terminal (Fig. 8; [0037]) comprising:
a processor ([0107]) configured to:
modulate encoded information to generate modulated symbols (Fig. 8, blocks 803 – 809; [0055] – [0056]), and
precode the modulated symbols according to second control information, the second control information indicating a precoding matrix (Fig. 8; blocks 815b, 815c; [0058]; linear phase shifts which can be selected by the designer i.e. a design choice, so 2nd control information is inherent);
and a transmitter configured to transmit the precoded modulated symbols (Fig. 8, blocks 817a – 817d transmit the signal; [0061]);
and the precoding matrix is selected from among a plurality of precoding matrices, the precoding matrices including a first matrix according to which phase shift is performed on at least one symbol of the modulated symbols (Fig. 8, blocks 815b, 815c provide linear phase shifts which can be selected by the designer i.e. a design choice).
Frenne does not disclose:
the modulation scheme is selected from among a plurality of modulation schemes, the modulation schemes including a π/2-shift Binary Phase-Shift Keying (BPSK) scheme;
the first control information indicating a modulation scheme;
In the same field of endeavor, however, Suzuki discloses the modulation scheme is selected from among a plurality of modulation schemes, the modulation schemes including a π/2-shift Binary Phase-Shift Keying (BPSK) scheme ([0081]; [0122] disclose several more modulation schemes);
the first control information indicating a modulation scheme ([0122] discloses several modulation schemes, so selecting one is inherent).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Suzuki in the system of Frenne because π/2-shift Binary Phase-Shift Keying (BPSK) scheme makes it easier to do synchronization at the receiver as it eliminates the signal being constant for long strings of “1”s and “0”s.
Regarding claim 2, Frenne discloses a first modulated symbol and a second modulated symbol that is phase shifted (Fig. 8, blocks 815b, 815c disclose linear phase shifts. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E, F), using phase shifts of π/2 and zero are obvious variations or design choices of the linear phases. One of ordinary skill in the art can select these phases to help improve timing detection at the receiver.
π/2-shift BPSK scheme is analyzed as in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Frenne discloses the modulated symbols include odd-numbered modulated symbols and even-numbered modulated symbols ([0037]; Fig. 8, block “symbol splitter”; [0050]), and a phase of each of the odd-numbered modulated symbols is shifted by π/2 and a phase of each of the even-numbered modulated symbols is not shifted (Fig. 8, blocks 815b, 815c disclose linear phase shifts. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E, F), using phase shifts of π/2 and zero are obvious variations or design choices of the linear phases. One of ordinary skill in the art can select these phases to help improve timing detection at the receiver).
π/2-shift BPSK scheme is analyzed as in claim 1 above.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to DFTs- OFDM schemes:
Castelain (US 20100014413) discloses a DFT-s OFDM transmission scheme.
Papasakellariou (US 20100195604) discloses a DFT-s OFDM transmission scheme.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights