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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy (IN 202431060025) has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (in [0004]-[0007]) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4 the recited “signal (y1,…yR) of one or” should be “a wireless signal (y1,…yR) of one or”. At least dependent claim 6 recites “wireless signal of the one or more MA scheme waveforms…”.
Claim 1, line 7 the recited “from one or more users;” should be “from the one or more users;” (to refer to the one or more users of line 5).
Claim 1, line 15, the recited “for signal received” should be “for the signal received”.
Claim 1, line 16, the recited “from one or more users” should be “from the one or more users”.
Claim 1, lines 17-18 the recited “channel equalized signal” should be “the channel equalized signal”.
Claim 1, line 23 the recited “from one or more users” should be “from the one or more users”.
Claim 2, lines 1-2 the recited “of each user” should be “of the received signal from each user” (to match the language of lines 20-21 of claim 1).
Claim 2, line 4 the recited “to retrieve effective symbol vector” should be “to retrieve an effective symbol vector”.
Claim 2, line 11 the recited “the transmitted data symbol vector” should be “a transmitted data symbol vector”.
Claim 3, line 3 the recited “the regenerated data symbol vector” should be “a regenerated data symbol vector”.
Claim 6, line 1 the recited “wherein receiving wireless signal” should be “wherein receiving the wireless signal” (to match the proposed correction of line 4).
Claim 6, line 2 the recited “removing cyclic prefix” should be “removing a cyclic prefix”.
Claim 8, line 1 the recited “wherein size” should be “wherein the size”.
Claim 8, line 2 the recited “matrices vary based on maximum” should be “matrices varies based on the maximum”.
Claim 8, line 3 the recited “and total number of users transmitting signal” should be “and the total number of users transmitting a signal”.
Dependent claims 4-5 are also objected to because they depend on objected claims 1-3.
Dependent claims 7, 9 are also objected to because it depends on objected claim 1.
Claim 10, lines 3-4 the recited “for receiving analog wireless signal” should be “for receiving analog wireless signals” (to match the language of line 6)
Claim 10, line 6 the recited “analog wireless signals” should be “the analog wireless signals”.
Claim 10, line 11 the recited “signal of one” should be “a signal of one”.
Claim 10, line 12 the recited “from one or more users,” should be “from the one or more users”.
Claim 10, line 14 the recited “from one or more users;” should be “from the one or more users”.
Claim 10, line 20 the recited “length of received signal” should be “length of the received signal”.
Claim 10, line 23 the recited “for signal received” should be “for the signal received”.
Claim 10, line 24 the recited “from one or more users;” should be “from the one or more users”.
Claim 10, line 25 the recited “channel” should be “the channel”.
Claim 10, line 31 the recited “from one or more users” should be “from the one or more users”.
Claim 11, line 1 the recited “The SIC-based” should be “The SIC based”.
Claim 11, line 2 the recited “of each user” should be “of the received signal from each user” (to match the language of line 29 of claim 10).
Claim 11, line 4 the recited “to retrieve effective symbol vector” should be “to retrieve an effective symbol vector”.
Claim 11, line 10 the recited “upon decode each bit” should be “upon decode of each bit”.
Claim 11, line 12 the recited “the transmitted data symbol vector” should be “a transmitted data symbol vector”.
Claim 12, line 1 the recited “The SIC-based” should be “The SIC based”.
Claim 12, line 4 the recited “the regenerated data symbol vector” should be “a regenerated data symbol vector”.
Claim 13, line 1 the recited “The SIC-based” should be “The SIC based”.
Claim 14, line 1 the recited “The SIC-based” should be “The SIC based”.
Claim 14, line 1 the recited “wherein size” should be “wherein the size”.
Claim 14, line 2 the recited “matrices vary based on maximum” should be “matrices varies based on the maximum”.
Claim 14, line 3 the recited “and total number of users transmitting signal” should be “and the total number of users transmitting a signal”.
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 1-14 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, line 23 recites “performing (321) the SIC on received signals…” and lines 1-2 recite “A method of successive interference cancellation (SIC) in a multi-user uplink receiver, the method comprises:”.
Based on lines 1-2, all of the claimed steps (including the performing (312) the SIC…) are part of the SIC. It is unclear which steps of the claim are performed to meet the claimed step “performing (321) the SIC on received signals…”.
Claim 1, lines 24-25 recite “or a maximum number of threshold iterations are completed”. Claim 1 does not previously claim iterations or threshold iterations or iterating any of the claimed steps, therefore it is unclear how any or all of the claimed steps of the SIC are connected to the “a maximum number of threshold iterations are completed”.
Claim 2, lines 11-12 recite “regenerating (410) the transmitted data symbol vector using the CCBs for each user for performing SIC in next iteration”.
Claim 2 claims the regenerating step is for performing SIC in (a) next iteration, however similar to claim 1 it is not clear which of the claimed steps (claim 1 and claim 2) correspond to the claimed “A method of successive interference (SIC)…”.
Claim 1 does not claim which steps of the SIC are performed in a current iteration or in an iterative manner, making the claimed “in next iteration” unclear.
Claim 3, lines 1-2 recites “wherein performing (312) the SIC on received signals in each of subsequent iterations further comprises:” The claimed “in each of subsequent iterations” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Dependent claims 4-9 are also rejected since they depend on at least rejected claim 1.
Apparatus claim 10, lines 31-33 recite: “and perform the SIC on received signals from one or more users until all WCBs are converted to CCBs in or a maximum number of threshold iterations are completed. Lines 1-2 recite: “A successive interference cancellation (SIC) based multi-user uplink receiver (200) comprising:”. It is unclear which functions of the claimed SIC based receiver correspond to or are part of the claimed “perform the SIC”.
Claim 10, lines 32-33 recite “or a maximum number of threshold iterations are completed”. Claim 10 does not previously claim iterations or threshold iterations, therefore it is unclear how any or all of the claimed functions of the SIC based receiver are connected to the “a maximum number of threshold iterations are completed”.
Claim 11, lines 12-13 recite “regenerate the transmitted data symbol vector using the CCBs for each user for performing SIC in next iteration”.
Similar to claim 10, it is not clear which of functions of the SIC based receiver correspond to or are part of the claimed “perform the SIC”.
Claim 10 does not claim any of the functions of the SIC based receiver performed in a current iteration or in an iterative manner, making the claimed “in next iteration” of claim 11 unclear.
Claim 12, line 2 recites “each of subsequent iterations further comprises:” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Dependent claims 13-14 are also rejected since they depend on at least rejected claim
10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heiman et al. (U.S. 2007/0165757) refer to at least the receiver of Fig. 3.
Liberti JR et al. (U.S. 2003/0206577) refer to the successive interference cancellation method of Fig. 6 that is performed by the receiver of Fig. 2.
Narasimhan et al. (U.S. 8,416,759) refer to the receiver of Fig. 7, channel estimation 114 is performed on OFDMA and SC-FDMA received signals.
Wu et al. (U.S. 7,471,932) refer to at least Fig. 9, a received signal that has a desired OFDM component and a WCDMA component which is interference, is received. Refer to the channel estimator 102 of standard WCDMA receiver 101 and the OFDM channel estimator 118 which receives the OFDM component and produces an OFDM channel estimate.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA VLAHOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M 8:00-4:00, TWRF 8:00-2:00.
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 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.
SOPHIA VLAHOS
Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/SOPHIA VLAHOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 04/13/2026
Prosecution Insights