CTNF 19/010,889 CTNF 81171 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 (FI 20245039 filed 1/17/2024) has been received. Specification 07-44 The specification (01/06/2025) is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The instant application specification does not provide a meaning for the claimed “meets an amplitude threshold”, “meeting the amplitude threshold” and “peak index per sample”. MPEP 2111.01, V. SUMMARY OF DETERMINING THE MEANING OF A CLAIM TERM THAT DOES NOT INVOKE 35 U.S.C. 112(f), states “If no reasonably clear meaning can be ascribed to the claim term after considering the specification and prior art, the examiner should apply the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim term as it can be best understood. Also, the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the specification objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d).” Claim Objections Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, line 2 the recited “being configured to” should be “are configured to”. Claim 3, line 2 the recited “being configured to” should be “are configured to”. Claim 4, line 2 the recited “being configured to” should be “are configured to”. Claim 5, line 2 the recited “being configured to” should be “are configured to”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-12 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, lines 9-10 recite “ determining whether at least one sample within the plurality of samples meets an amplitude threshold ”. Line 14 recites “ the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold ” (emphasis added). The instant application specification does not provide a meaning for the claimed “meets” (also the “meeting”). Claim 1, lines 13-14 recite “determining a set of peak indices corresponding to the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold, peak index per sample;” It is unclear what the “peak index per sample” attempts to claim in relation to the previous limitations of the determining step. The instant application specification discloses “peak index per sample” as well, it does not provide a meaning for the claimed “peak index per sample”. It is also unclear if the determining step determines a “set of peak indices” (“set” interpreted as corresponding to a group or a collection of (peak indices)) corresponding to one sample (meeting the claimed “at least one sample”), or a (one) peak index (not a set of peak indices) is determined per sample that “meets” the amplitude threshold. Claim 2, similar to claim 1, claims “determining…meets the amplitude threshold” and “the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold” and is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above. Dependent claim 3 is also rejected because it depends on rejected claims 1 and 2. Dependent claims 4-5 are also rejected because the depend on rejected claim 1. Independent claim 6 recites (similar to claim 1) “determining whether at least one sample within the plurality of samples meets an amplitude threshold”, recites “the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold” and recites “determining a set of peak indices corresponding to the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold, peak index per sample;”. Claim 6 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above. Claim 7, similar to claim 6, claims “determining…meets the amplitude threshold” and “the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold” and is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 6 above. Dependent claim 8 is also rejected because it depends on rejected claims 6 and 7. Dependent claims 9-10 are also rejected because the depend on rejected claim 6. Independent claim 11 recites (similar to claim 1) “determining whether at least one sample within the plurality of samples meets an amplitude threshold”, recites “the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold” and recites “determining a set of peak indices corresponding to the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold, peak index per sample;”. Claim 11 is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above. Claim 12 similar to claim 11, claims “determining…meets the amplitude threshold” and “the at least one sample meeting the amplitude threshold” and is rejected based on the rationale used to reject claim 11 above. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanahashi et al. (U.S. 2018/0269910) refer to at least Fig. 2, 3, 5 and 9. In particular refer to the signal generating unit 42 of Fig. 5 which comprises peak determination device 420 which determines peaks in the input signal stream x(n), operator 426 which operates to produce a peak-reduce the input signal stream x(n). Asjadi (WO 2014/177839 A1) Fig. 3 discloses the components of the peak cancellation block 207 of Fig. 2. Carsello (U.S. 7,817,733) refer to the peak limiting block diagrams of Fig. 7 and 8. Long (U.S. 6,240,141) refer to at least Fig. 3, 5 and 10 disclosing peak-to-average reduction flowcharts. Ma et al. (U.S. 6,654,427) Fig. 3 discloses a peak notching system, mux 57 selectively selects an adjusted (reduced positive peak) sample out of circuitry 60 to replace a positive peak sample out of 38 & 40 of the peak sample location circuitry 36, column 5, lines 23-55 Examiner note: none of the references cited above and none of the references cited by Applicant in the 01/06/2025 IDS disclose or suggest “determining a puncture number based on an error correction capability of a decoder; selecting a set of tones within the plurality of tones for tone puncturing, wherein a number of tones within the set of tones equals to the puncture number;” recited by instant independent claims 1, 6 and 11 and in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1, 6 and 11. 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 03/18/2026 Application/Control Number: 19/010,889 Page 2 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/010,889 Page 3 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/010,889 Page 4 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/010,889 Page 5 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/010,889 Page 6 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/010,889 Page 7 Art Unit: 2633 Application/Control Number: 19/010,889 Page 8 Art Unit: 2633
Prosecution Insights