DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed on 4/2/2025.
Currently, claims 1-16 are pending.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-16 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.
With regards to claim 1, claim 1 states (with emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving input digital data; and
[Limitation A] generating a modulated waveform encoding the input digital data by establishing positive phase differences and negative phase differences between the modulated waveform and a carrier signal wherein each of the positive phase differences is representative of a bit within the input digital data of a first binary value and each of the negative phase differences is representative of a bit within the input digital data of a second binary value where the first binary value is different from the second binary value;
wherein the modulated waveform and the carrier signal are of a first frequency;
[Limitation B] wherein an instantaneous amplitude of the modulated waveform is based upon summations of the carrier signal and one or more layering signals.
Where Limitation A and Limitation B contradict each other in regards to the technical/engineering merits in regards to meaning of a/the “modulated waveform”.
In regards to Limitation A, Limitation A provides a logical distinction between the ‘modulated waveform’ and the ‘carrier signal’, and further requires the modulated waveform to induces phase shifts upon the carrier signal (since a typical/expected RF carrier signal in the known art/field is an unchanged sinusoid, e.g. a sine wave). Which reading further into the detailed specification, the “modulated wave” (and the pending claims) is the summation (or composite signal) of the various layer signals which are then applied to the carrier signal in order to achieve a ‘data modulated RF signal’ (which would then presumably be transmitted across a channel to a receiver).
In other words, the sum/superposition of the layer signals equals ‘modulate waveform’ which is then applied/mixed/combined with the [RF] carrier signal.
For example, (in regards to Limitation A), Layer 1+Layer2+Layer3 yields the ‘modulated waveform’. Then the ‘modulated waveform’ + ‘carrier_signal’ yields a ‘data modulated [RF] signal’ (used for future transmissions).
In regards to limitation B, Limitation B redefines the technical/engineering meaning of the ‘modulated waveform’ by requiring the “instantaneous amplitude of the modulated waveform is based upon summations of the carrier signal and one or more layering signals”. Where the ‘modulated waveform’ is redefined to be the final result (i.e. equivalent to the ‘data modulated [RF] signal’, as addressed above) instead of an intermediate result (as required by Limitation A).
For example, the ‘modulated waveform’ = (Layer1+Layer2+Layer3) + carrier_signal.
Addressing the contradiction between Limitation A and Limitation B (in the context above), where the contradiction between Limitation A and Limitation B (as addressed above), fails to meet the threshold requirements for clarity and precision (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II) for defining clear “boundaries of the subject matter for which protection is sought” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.01) as well as “clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02) in regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regards to independent claim 15, claim 15 (in lines 1-8) also state/require ‘Limitation A’ and ‘Limitation B’ (as previously addressed) and thus the contradiction between Limitation A and Limitation B (as addressed above), fails to meet the threshold requirements for clarity and precision (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II) for defining clear “boundaries of the subject matter for which protection is sought” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.01) as well as “clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02) in regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Where dependent claims 2-14 and 16 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of the corresponding independent/parent claim 1 (and/or claim 15) and thus are also rejected using similar rationale (as addressed above).
Additionally but not exclusively, dependent claim 9 states “wherein a first layering signal of the one or more layering signals is of a second frequency, the second frequency being an integral multiple of the first frequency”; which raises a new logical contradiction with respect to the limitation “wherein the modulated waveform and the carrier signal are of a first frequency” as stated/required by independent claim 1. Where the contradiction between dependent claim 9 and independent claim 1 (as addressed above) also fails to meet the threshold requirements for clarity and precision (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II) for defining clear “boundaries of the subject matter for which protection is sought” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.01) as well as “clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02) in regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Comments
Looking beyond the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues above, the scope of the filed claim would still likely be rejectable using known older superposition modulation (before OFDM became typical) in which multiple layered signals are combined to directly phase (and amplitude) modulate the RF carrier. For example, see Tanaka et al. (US 2008/0304556) and Wang et al. (US 2007/0195907).
Where Tanaka et al. discloses generating a 64-QAM modulated RF carrier [0003]+[0046] modulated using three different layered QPSK symbols/signals (see figs. 12+32), which QPSK layer having a reduced amplitude as shown by figure 2. Each individual QPSK layer generating either a positive phase shift (e.g. counter-clockwise) or a negative phase shift (e.g. clockwise) when summed/combined with the carrier signal and other QPSK layers (as shown figure 12), as applicable to a single Tx antenna (e.g. figure 7) or multiple Tx antennas (e.g. figure 9). The Examiner notes that each particular QPSK layer may (or may not) also be phase rotated/shifted (which is separate concept than QPSK modulation(s)).
Moreover, Wang et al. shows a similar invention of superposition modulation but may use BPSK layers (each BPSK symbol/signal yielding a positive or negative phase shift based on the single data bit value) instead of QPSK layers, as shown by fig. 7 (with or without individual BPSK layer phase rotation different than the phase shift/rotation required by the BPSK modulation).
Where the Examiner considers the time offsets for applying/combing each individual layer signal in the plurality of the layered signals (e.g. instant figure 2) to be a key feature of the instant invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
No allowable subject matter will be indicated until the above 112(b) issues are clarified/resolved (either by amendments or arguments).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are Tanaka et al. (US 2008/0304556) and Wang et al. (US 2007/0195907); both references being addressed above. Additional reference are cited int eh attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. Perez, telephone number (571)270-3231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10am to 6pm EST.
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, David C. Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/JAMES M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights