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 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaal et al (US Publication No.: 20100074343) in view of Iwai et al (US Publication No.: 20090325513), further in view of Han et al (US Publication No.: 20080240285).
Claim 1, Gaal et al discloses
a memory storing program instructions (paragraph 95); and
a processor, upon executing the program instructions (paragraph 95), configured to
receive a frame control comprising an initial Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) symbol and a subsequent OFDM symbol of the frame control (Fig. 2 shows the frames of the transmission signal, label demodulation reference signal indicates the frame control or reference signal. (paragraph 27 discloses “The demodulation reference signal may also be referred to as a reference signal, pilot, preamble, reference, training sequence, etc.” Fig. 4, label 432 outputs M modulated symbols (paragraph 40). Paragraph 5 discloses OFDM as a type of wireless system, which indicates the symbols can be OFDM.),
wherein the initial OFDM symbol of the frame control is generated using frequency domain Constant Amplitude Zero Auto-Correlation (CAZAC) sequence (Fig. 4, label frequency base domain sequence generator. Paragraph 31 discloses the base sequence may be a CAZAC sequence. Fig. 4, label 432 generates modulated symbols based on the frequency domain base sequence output from label 412.).
Gaal et al fails to disclose
the CAZAC sequence is generated using a modulation of a frequency domain Constant Amplitude Zero Auto-Correlation (CAZAC) sequence by a pseudo- noise (PN) sequence;
wherein the frequency domain CAZAC sequence modulated by the PN sequence determines a service type associated with the broadcast communication frame; and
wherein the PN sequence is reset at a start of the preamble.
Iwai et al discloses
the CAZAC sequence is generated using a modulation of a frequency domain Constant Amplitude Zero Auto-Correlation (CAZAC) sequence by a pseudo-noise (PN) sequence (Fig. 7 shows multiplication of Zadoff-Chu sequence and PN sequence to randomize the Zadoff-Chu sequence. Fig. 26b, label idft indicates that the Zadoff-Chu sequence is in the frequency domain (paragraph 146).),
wherein the frequency domain CAZAC sequence modulated by the PN sequence determines a service type associated with the broadcast communication frame (Paragraph 68 discloses extending a PN sequence to a ZC sequence length, wherein contents of control information are associated with combinations of PN sequences, hence the PN sequence can be used as a preamble as control information, wherein service type associated with frame or preamble is considered control information. Paragraph 1 discloses radio communication apparatus and radio communication method, wherein broadcasting is a type of radio communication. ) and
wherein the PN sequence is reset at a start of the preamble (Fig. 6, label sequence length setting section sets the sequence length of the PN sequence. This indicates the PN sequence is reset for each generation of a preamble or the start of the preamble shown in Fig. 6,7.).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Gaal et al’s CAZAC and preamble by generating CAZAC sequence and preamble or frame control with information as disclosed by Iwai et al so to prevent performance deterioration due to influence of frequency offset while maintaining the ZC sequence length long.
Gaal et al discloses CAZAC sequence (paragraph 31) and Iwai et al discloses ZC sequence (Fig. 7, label ZC), but fails to indicate the relationship between CAZAC sequence and ZC sequence.
Han et al discloses a CAZAC sequence is a Zadoff-Chu sequence with an odd number length. (Paragraph 77) It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application that ZC sequence and CAZAC sequence are related as indicated by Han et al since CAZAC sequence is a ZC sequence.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11923966. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of this application is broader than the claimed invention of the patent, hence this application’s recited language anticipates the invention of the patent.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11923966 in view of Iwai et al (US Publication No.: 20090325513), further in view of Han et al (US Publication No.: 20080240285).
Claim 1 of this application recites limitations broader than the claimed invention of the patent’s claim 8. Although the patent’s claimed language does not recite “wherein the frequency domain CAZAC sequence modulated by the PN sequence determines a service type associated with the broadcast communication frame;” and recites ZC sequence as opposed to CAZAC, but fails to indicate the relationship between CAZAC sequence and ZC sequence.
Iwai et al discloses the frequency domain CAZAC sequence modulated by the PN sequence determines a service type associated with the broadcast communication frame (Paragraph 68 discloses extending a PN sequence to a ZC sequence length, wherein contents of control information are associated with combinations of PN sequences, hence the PN sequence can be used as a preamble as control information, wherein service type associated with frame or preamble is considered control information. Paragraph 1 discloses radio communication apparatus and radio communication method, wherein broadcasting is a type of radio communication. ). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify patent’s recited limitation by generating CAZAC sequence and preamble or frame control with information as disclosed by Iwai et al so to prevent performance deterioration due to influence of frequency offset while maintaining the ZC sequence length long.
Han et al discloses a CAZAC sequence is a Zadoff-Chu sequence with an odd number length. (Paragraph 77) It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application that ZC sequence and CAZAC sequence are related as indicated by Han et al since CAZAC sequence is a ZC sequence.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18422990 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of this application is broader than the claimed invention of the copending application, hence the claimed invention of this application anticipates the invention of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6044. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Andrew C Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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.
/LINDA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights