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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 and 03/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F. R 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration filed on 12/10/2024 is hereby acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it appears to be scanned copies resulting in poor legibility making it difficult to read. For instant, in Fig. 4 the description in the legend “Note” is not readable. Similar, labeling in Fig. 7 are not readable 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recite the limitation “the code constant sequence set” line 3, which is understood to refer back to “a set code constant sequence” in claim 1, line 11-12. It is suggested to amend the limitation “the code constant sequence set” to “the set code constant sequence” to be consistent with word usage.
Claim 2 recite the limitation “the plurality of calculation units” line 3, which is understood to refer back to “a plurality of units” in line 2. It is suggested to amend the limitation “a plurality of units” to “a plurality of calculation units” to be consistent with word usage.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the search range" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first part" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the binary divided sub parts" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the status value of the component " in line 2-3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the calculation units" in line 2. It is unclear if these calculation units are same or different from “the plurality of calculation units” or “the one or more calculation units” recited in claim 1 and 2 upon which claim 4 depends on. It is suggested that if these calculation units are same, than to amend the claims with consistent word usage.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the number of the code constant sequences" in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. Further it is unclear if “the code constant sequences” is same or different from “the set code constant sequences” recited in claim in claim 1, line 11-12 upon which claim 4 depends on.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the code constant sequences" in line 3. It is unclear if “the code constant sequences” is same or different from “the set code constant sequences” recited in claim 3 line 2 and claim 1 line 11-12 upon which claim 5 depends on.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the code constant sequences" in line 3. It is unclear if “the code constant sequences” is same or different from “the set code constant sequences” recited in claim 3 line 2 and claim 1 line 11-12 upon which claim 5 depends on.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the code constant sequences" in line 2. It is unclear if “the code constant sequences” is same or different from “the set code constant sequences” recited in claim 1 line 11-12 upon which claim 7 depends on.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the tap section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the one sub part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a sub part in which a dominant value appears in the correlation sum” in line 3. It is unclear if this “sub part” and “dominant value” are same or different from “the binary divided sub parts” and “a dominant value” recited in claim 1 where “the correlation sum” are calculated (see claim 1, line 2-3 and line 5-9).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “discrete digital signals” in line 3. It is unclear if this “discrete digital signals” is same or different from “the series of discrete digital signals” recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the number of code constants of the code constant group" in line 2-3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the discrete digital signals” in line 2-3. It is unclear if this “discrete digital signals” is same or different from “the series of discrete digital signals” recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the binary divided parts” in line 3. It is unclear if this “binary divided parts” is same or different from “binary divided first and second parts” recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the current search range” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the code” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the present time” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the average value” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “discrete digital signals” in line 3. It is unclear if this “discrete digital signals” is same or different from “the series of discrete digital signals” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the binary divided parts” in line 4. It is unclear if this “binary divided parts” is same or different from “binary divided first and second parts” recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the code constant sequences" in line 2. It is unclear if “the code constant sequences” is same or different from “the set code constant sequences” recited in claim 1 line 11-12 upon which claim 12 depends on.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the code constant sequences" in line 2. It is unclear if “the code constant sequences” is same or different from “the set code constant sequences” recited in claim 1 line 11-12 upon which claim 12 depends on.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the code constant sequences" in line 2. It is unclear if “the code constant sequences” is same or different from “the set code constant sequences” recited in claim 1 line 11-12 upon which claim 12 depends on.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a discrete digital signal” in line 3. It is unclear if this “discrete digital signal” is part of or different from “the series of discrete digital signals” recited in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the tap section" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the previously specified one part" in line 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the decided one part" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the one or more discrete digital signal sequences” in line 4-5. It is unclear if “the one or more discrete digital signal sequences” is same or different from “a series of discrete digital signals” recited earlier in lines 3.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “discrete digital signals” in line 13. It is unclear if this “discrete digital signals” is same or different from “a series of discrete digital signals” or “the one or more discrete digital signal sequences” recited earlier in lines 3 and 4-5, respectively.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “each of one or more code constant sequences set” in line 2-3. It is unclear if this “each of one or more code constant sequences set” is same or different from “each of one or more code constant sequences set” recited in claim 14 upon which claim 15 depends on.
Claim 15 recites the step limitations of “reassigning” and “respecifying” in lines 2 and 4, respectively. However, the claim is unclear if the “codes” begin reassigned “based on each of one or more code constant sequences set for each of a series of discrete digital signals having a unit time difference from each other” is same or different from that recited in claim 14. Similarly, the claim is unclear if the “respecifying” same or different from “binary divided parts of a search range for one or more discrete digital signal sequences to which codes are assigned” recited in claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2-13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KIM et al. (US 20250150312 A1) discloses (Abstract, Fig. 4, 6, 10) “Serializer/deserializer (SerDes) modules, equalizers, and equalization techniques having robust parameter initialization may substantially reduce convergence time. One illustrative equalizer includes: a discrete-time, finite impulse response (“FIR”) filter to convert a receive signal to a filtered signal; a decision element to determine channel symbols represented by the filtered signal; and a controller. The controller is configured to, for each of multiple values in a search range, estimate a performance of the equalizer based on the channel symbols and at least one of the filtered signal or an input signal to the decision element; configured to find a centroid value based on the performance for each of the multiple parameter values in the search range; and configured to derive an initial value for the parameter from the centroid value.”
Markman (US 20080291335 A1) discloses (Abstract, Fig. 1, 5, 6, 8, 12,19, Para. [0024]-[0026]) “a block diagram of a centroid calculator 100 is shown in FIG. 1 for use in an ATSC-DTV system. Centroid calculator 100 comprises correlator 105, leak integrator 110, squarer 115, peak search element 120, multiplier 125, first integrator 130, second integrator 135 and phase detector 140. Centroid calculator 100 is based on the segment sync signal, one sample-per-symbol and a data input signal 101-1 comprising only the in-phase (real) component. The data input signal 101-1 represents a demodulated received ATSC-DTV signal provided by a demodulator (not shown)…. Peak search element 120 performs a peak search over the 832 squared integrator values (correlator signal 116) and provides peak signal 121, which corresponds to the symbol index associated with the maximum value among the 832 squared integrator values. The peak signal 121 is used as the initial center of the channel and is applied to second integrator 135 (described below).”
Yousef (US 20050053129 A1) discloses (Abstract, Fig. 2, 5-7, 10-13, 16, Para. [0061]) “An adaptive filter has a plurality of filter coefficients and a filter coefficients processing unit trains of the adaptive filter. The filter coefficients processing unit is operable to iterate to alter the plurality of filter coefficients of the communication system filter. Every Nth iteration, the filter coefficients processing unit is operable to identify a first group of filter coefficients of the plurality of filter coefficients that satisfy filter coefficient threshold rules and a second group of filter coefficients of the plurality of filter coefficients that do not satisfy the filter coefficient threshold rules. Every iteration, the filter coefficients processing unit is operable to: (1) update the first group of filter coefficients using a first step size and a first error signal; and (2) update the second group of filter coefficients using a second step size and a second error signal.” “Having done such a correlation, the channel taps are iteratively determined by ascertaining a correlation peak of the correlating of the training sequence with the known training sequence. Once the location of a channel tap is determined, it is removed from the training sequence to produce a modified training sequence. The modified training sequence is correlated with the known training sequence. Based on this subsequent correlation, another correlation peak is identified to determine a location of another channel tap. This iterative process of determining the channel taps continues until all of the channel taps have been determined.”
NAZARATHY (US 20170141943 A1) discloses (Abstract, Fig,. 1, 10-14, 34, Para. [0024], [0027]) “A method for receiving and processing orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signals, the method may include receiving a stream of OFDM symbols; searching, by a timing circuit, in the stream of OFDM symbols, for a training sequence that comprises a first Golay codeword and a second Golay codeword; processing, by a timing circuit, the training sequence and extracting timing information about a timing of reception of OFDM symbols, out of the stream of OFDM symbols, that convey data; wherein a sum of an autocorrelation of the first Golay codeword and an autocorrelation of the second Golay codeword consists essentially of a delta function.” “The timing circuit may be configured to compare the cross correlation peak of the selected training sequence to a cross correlation peak of at least one training sequence candidate that differs from the selected training sequence to provide a comparison result; and to determine a fractional timing offset based upon the comparison.” “The circuit may include: a first cross-correlation circuit that may include first taps and may be configured to search for the first Golay codeword; a second cross-correlation circuit that may include second taps and may be configured to search for the second Golay codeword; wherein the frequency offset determination circuit may include multiple phase detectors that are configured to calculate phase differences between output signals of different taps of the first taps and the second taps; wherein the frequency offset determination circuit may be configured to determine the frequency offset of the OFDM sequence in response to the phase differences.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMNEET SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2414. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:30pm.
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 K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
/AMNEET SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2633 /SAM K AHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633