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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by anticipated Park et al (US 2021/0168720).
Re claim 1, Park teaches of a method, comprising: determining, by a network device (Master Device, #100, Figures 1 – 2), a first signal (Wake-Up preamble, P1, or P1 and P2, Figures 5 and 7 – 8), wherein a length of a modulation symbol of the first signal is one of a plurality of lengths of modulation symbols (one of the two symbol lengths of Figures 7 – 8), and the first signal is a preamble signal or a signal used by a terminal device (slave device, #200, Figures 1 – 2 and Paragraph 0039) for synchronization (Wake-Up preamble, Figures 5 and 7 – 8); determining, by the network device, a length of a modulation symbol of a second signal (Frame Body, Figures 5 and 7 – 8) based on the first signal (the second signal has the same length as the length of the first signal, Figures 7 – 8), wherein the second signal is a data signal after the first signal (Frame Body as shown in Figures 5 and 7 – 8), and the modulation symbol of the second signal is an amplitude shift keying modulation symbol or a frequency shift keying modulation symbol (OOK, Figures 7 – 8); and sending, by the network device, the first signal and the second signal to the terminal device (S110, Fig.2).
Re claim 3, Park teaches of wherein the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal is the same as the length of the modulation symbol of the first signal (the second signal has the same length as the length of the first signal, Figures 7 – 8).
Re claim 13, Park teaches of communication apparatus (#100, Figures 1 – 2), comprising: at least one processor (controller, Figures 1 – 2); and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing program instructions for execution (Paragraph 0075) by the at least one processor to: determine a first signal, wherein a length of a modulation symbol of the first signal is one of a plurality of lengths of modulation symbols, and the first signal is a preamble signal or a signal used by a terminal device for synchronization; determine a length of a modulation symbol of a second signal based on the first signal, wherein the second signal is a data signal after the first signal, and the modulation symbol of the second signal is an amplitude shift keying modulation symbol or a frequency shift keying modulation symbol; and send the first signal and the second signal to the terminal device (see claim 1).
Re claim 15, Park teaches of wherein the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal is the same as the length of the modulation symbol of the first signal (the second signal has the same length as the length of the first signal, Figures 7 – 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Re claims 2 and 14, Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as well as wherein the plurality of lengths of modulation symbols comprise a first length of a modulation symbol and a second length of a modulation symbol (Figures 7 – 8), and the second length of the modulation symbol (16μsec, Fig.7) is four times the first length of the modulation symbol (4μsec, Fig.8). However, Park discloses the claimed invention except for the second length of the modulation symbol being twice the first length of the modulation symbol.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second length of the modulation symbol being twice the first length of the modulation symbol, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215
Claims 4 – 8 and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Lin et al (US 2020/0045635).
Re claims 4 and 16, Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 except of wherein the first signal indicates the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal.
Lin teaches of the first signal (Signaling, Fig.13) indicates the length of the modulation symbol (rate indication, Fig.13) of the second signal (payload, Fig.13) (Paragraphs 0028, 0047 and 0143).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined, by the terminal device a length of a modulation symbol according to the channel conditions so as to perform demodulation without errors.
Re claims 5 and 17, Park teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as well as wherein the length of the modulation symbol of a third signal (header, Figures 5 and 7 – 8) is the same as the length of the modulation symbol of the first signal (same length as the symbol length of the frame body, Figures 7 – 8); and the method further comprises: sending, by the network device, the third signal to the terminal device (S110, Fig.2). However, Park does not specifically teach of determining, by the network device, a length of a modulation symbol of a third signal based on the first signal, the third signal indicates the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal.
Lin teaches of determining, by the network device, a length of a modulation symbol of a third signal based on the first signal (rate indication in the signaling field, Fig.13), the third signal indicates the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal (rate indication in the signaling field, Fig.13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined, by the network device a length of a modulation symbol according to the channel conditions so as to perform demodulation at the receiver without errors.
Re claims 6 and 18, Park and Lin teach all the limitations of claims 5 and 17 as well as Park teaches of the third signal is a downlink signal before the second signal (as shown in Figures 5 and 7 – 8). Lin further teaches of wherein the third signal is a downlink signal after the first signal (Paragraph 0087 and Fig.1), the third signal is a downlink signal before the second signal (as shown in Fig.13), and the third signal is a signal that carries downlink control information (DCI) (rate indication and parsing, Paragraph 0143).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the third signal be a signal that carries downlink control information (DCI) so as to reduce receiver signal processing complexity.
Re claim 7, Park teaches of a method, comprising: receiving, by a terminal device (#200, Fig.2), a first signal and a second signal (P1 and P2, Fig.5 and Figures 7 – 8) from a network device (#100, Fig.5), wherein a length of a modulation symbol of the first signal is one of a plurality of lengths of modulation symbols (one of the two symbol lengths of Figures 7 – 8), and the first signal is a preamble signal or a signal used by the terminal device for synchronization (P1, wake-up preamble, or P1 and P2, Figures 5 and 7 – 8); wherein the second signal is a data signal after the first signal (as shown in Figures 5 and 7 – 8), and the modulation symbol of the second signal is an amplitude shift keying modulation symbol or a frequency shift keying modulation symbol (OOK, Figures 7 – 8); and demodulating, by the terminal device, the second signal (S120, Fig.2). However, Park does not specifically teach of determining, by the terminal device, a length of a modulation symbol of the second signal based on the first signal and demodulating, by the terminal device, the second signal (S120, Fig.2) based on the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal.
Lin teaches of determining, by a terminal device (Receive end, Figures 2, 4, 6 and 18), a length of a modulation symbol (rate indication, Fig.13) of a second signal (payload, Fig.13) based on a first signal (Preamble and Signaling, Fig.13) and demodulating, by the terminal device, the second signal based on the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal (Paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined, by the terminal device a length of a modulation symbol according to the channel conditions so as to perform demodulation without errors.
Re claim 8, Park and Lin teach all the limitations of claim 7 as well as Park teaches of wherein the plurality of lengths of modulation symbols comprise a first length of a modulation symbol and a second length of a modulation symbol (Figures 7 – 8), and the second length of the modulation symbol (16μsec, Fig.7) is four times the first length of the modulation symbol (4μsec, Fig.8). However, Park and Lin disclose the claimed invention except for the second length of the modulation symbol being twice the first length of the modulation symbol.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second length of the modulation symbol being twice the first length of the modulation symbol, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215
Re claim 9, Park teaches of wherein the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal is the same as the length of the modulation symbol of the first signal (the second signal has the same length as the length of the first signal, Figures 7 – 8).
Re claim 10, Park and Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as well as Lin teaches of the first signal (Signaling, Fig.13) indicates the length of the modulation symbol (rate indication, Fig.13) of the second signal (payload, Fig.13) (Paragraphs 0028, 0047 and 0143).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined, by the terminal device a length of a modulation symbol according to the channel conditions so as to perform demodulation without errors.
Re claim 11, Park and Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as well as Park teaches of wherein the length of the modulation symbol of a third signal (header, Figures 5 and 7 – 8) is the same as the length of the modulation symbol of the first signal (same length as the symbol length of the frame body, Figures 7 – 8); and the method further comprises: sending, by the network device, the third signal to the terminal device (S110, Fig.2). Lin further teaches of determining, by the network device, a length of a modulation symbol of a third signal based on the first signal (rate indication in the signaling field, Fig.13), the third signal indicates the length of the modulation symbol of the second signal (rate indication in the signaling field, Fig.13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined, by the network device a length of a modulation symbol according to the channel conditions so as to perform demodulation at the receiver without errors.
Re claim 12, Park and Lin teach all the limitations of claim 11 as well as Park teaches of the third signal is a downlink signal before the second signal (as shown in Figures 5 and 7 – 8). Lin further teaches of wherein the third signal is a downlink signal after the first signal (Paragraph 0087 and Fig.1), the third signal is a downlink signal before the second signal (as shown in Fig.13), and the third signal is a signal that carries downlink control information (DCI) (rate indication and parsing, Paragraph 0143).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the third signal be a signal that carries downlink control information (DCI) so as to reduce receiver signal processing complexity.
Re claim 19, Park and Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as well as Lin teaches of wherein the program instructions are for execution by the at least one processor further to: determine a first message (S120, Fig.4 or S121, Fig.6), wherein the first message indicates a length of a modulation symbol of a downlink signal after the first message (S130, Figures 4 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a first message to indicate a length of a modulation symbol of a downlink signal after the first message so as to efficiently perform downlink communication.
Re claim 20, Park and Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as well as Park teaches of wherein the downlink signal after the first message comprises one or more of a preamble signal, a reference signal, a calibration signal, a signal that carries DCI information, or a data signal (wake-up packet, Figures 5 and 7 – 8) (WUP, Figures 4 and 6 of Lin).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights