DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/982,284 filed on December 16, 2024. Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first preamble symbol" in line 1. It is not clear whether said “first preamble symbol" is referring to “at least one first preamble symbol" as recited in lines 7-8 of claim 1 or “spreading at least one first preamble symbol" as recited in line 8 of claim 1. Hence, renders claim 3 and its dependent claim indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claims 5, 10, 12, 17 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
I. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
II. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
III. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
IV. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammerschmidt (US 12,015,916 B2).
Regarding claims 15, 1 & 8, Hammerschmidt teaches a signal transmission apparatus (Figure 14: “Hybrid Wireless Transceiver”, “NB (narrow band) wireless signaling” & “UWB (ultra-wideband) wireless signaling”), wherein the apparatus comprises: a first transmitter, the first transmitter configured to send a narrow band signal to a receive end, wherein the narrow band signal is used by the receive end to determine initial time-frequency synchronization information (Figure 14: “Hybrid Wireless Transceiver”, “NB wireless signaling”, Figure 18: “Transmit NB Poll Packet” & Column 5, Lines 1-13: the first device transmits the scheduled NB poll packet to the second device… the second device extracts a type of synchronization data from the sync field that corresponds to time and frequency synchronization information); and a second transmitter, the second transmitter configured to send an ultra-wideband signal to the receive end (Figure 14: “Hybrid Wireless Transceiver”, “UWB wireless signaling” & Figure 18: “Transmit UWB-Tx Poll Fragments”), wherein the ultra-wideband signal comprises a channel impulse response training sequence (CTS) field (Figure 12: “UWB-CIRTS (channel impulse response training sequence)”), wherein the CTS field is used by the receive end to determine a channel impulse response (Figure 12: “UWB-CIRTS”, Column 5 Lines 53-56: the second device uses the CIRTS to estimate a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) and/or determine other synchronization information (e.g., time and frequency information, scheduling data, etc.), Figure 18: “T/F SYNC; Data” & “SYNC, CIR” ), wherein the CTS field comprises at least one CTS symbol (Figure 12: “UWB-CIRTS”, Figure 21: “CIRTS frag1…N” & “Periodic Sequences E…E” (Row 3)). Although Hammerschmidt teaches said at least one CTS symbol, Hammerschmidt does not explicitly discloses wherein the CTS symbol comprises at least one first preamble symbol or is generated by spreading at least one first preamble symbol. Hammerschmidt, on the other hand, discloses in Figure 21: “Periodic Sequences E…E” (Row 3) and Column 26, Lines 36-40: Row 3 represents an embodiment where a given CIRTS fragment 2102 is composed of a periodically repeating short sequence, a concept used for traditional ternary Ipatov preamble sequences in IEEE 802.15.4 UWB. Said “traditional ternary Ipatov preamble sequences in IEEE 802.15.4 UWB” corresponds to claimed “wherein the CTS symbol comprises at least one first preamble symbol” or wherein the CTS symbol is generated by spreading at least one first preamble symbol (Optional Limitation). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Hammerschmidt’s ternary Ipatov preamble sequences as claimed at least one first preamble symbol. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to improve efficiency, Column 27, Lines 2-3.
Regarding claims 16, 2 & 9, Hammerschmidt further teaches wherein the ultra-wideband signal further comprises a synchronization (SYNC) field (Figure 12: “UWB-CIRTS”, Figure 18: “T/F SYNC; Data” & “SYNC, CIR”); and wherein the SYNC field is used by the receive end to determine target time-frequency synchronization information based on the initial time-frequency synchronization information, and the SYNC field comprises at least one second preamble symbol (Figure 12: “UWB-CIRTS”, Figure 18: “T/F SYNC; Data”, “SYNC, CIR” & Figure 4: “SYNC Preamble”).
Regarding claims 7 & 14, Hammerschmidt also discloses wherein there are a plurality of CTS symbols, the plurality of CTS symbols form a plurality of CTS segments, and there is a null signal interval between any two CTS segments (Figure 12: “UWB CIRTS frag1”… “UWB CIRTS fragN”).
Regarding claims 17-20, 10-13 & 3-6, since a part of these claims are related to the “spread” first preamble symbol, no patentable weight is given (Optional Limitation). However, Hammerschmidt discloses the other part of these claims i.e., second preamble symbol with code (Figure 12: “UWB-CIRTS”, Figure 18: “T/F SYNC; Data”, “SYNC, CIR”, Figure 4: “SYNC Preamble” Figure 21: “Periodic Sequences E…E” (Row 3) & Column 26, Lines 36-40: Row 3 represents an embodiment where a given CIRTS fragment 2102 is composed of a periodically repeating short sequence, a concept used for traditional ternary Ipatov preamble sequences in IEEE 802.15.4 UWB), a plurality of CTS segments and a null signal interval (Figure 12: “UWB CIRTS frag1”… “UWB CIRTS fragN”).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SHAWKAT M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1639. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:30AM-3:30PM 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 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAWKAT M ALI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633