DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed on 5/13/2025.
Currently, claims 1-13 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Some of the issues will be addressed below:
1. An orthogonal time sequency multiplexing (OTSM)-based communication method performed on a computing device including one or more processors and a memory storing one or more programs executed by the one or more processors, the OTSM-based communication method comprising:
generating a plurality of candidate matrices in a delay-time domain by multiplying data in row units in a delay-sequency domain by a plurality of preset scrambled Walsh-Hadamard transform (S-WHT) matrices or generating a plurality of candidate matrices in a delay-time domain by scrambling the data in row units in the delay-sequency domain by using a plurality of preset scramble vectors and then multiplying the scrambled data by the S-WHT matrices; and
generating a data matrix in the delay-time domain based on the plurality of candidate matrices.
Where the emphasized limitations above renders the scope of the claim 1 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) since fail(s) the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II, which also renders the scope of claim 1 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II).
Section 3.1 (below):
First, the meaning of the phrases “delay-time domain” and/or “delay-sequency domain” used in the claim language is not standard or known terminology in the art (or technology area). Where the Examiner notes that sequency is related to the Walsh-Hadamard functions and transforms. However the concept of the ‘delay domain’ (in regards to the phrases “delay-time domain” and/or “delay-sequency domain”) is even explained in the claims or detailed specification. In fact the technical/engineering merits of the instant specification does not process the ‘delay domain’ at all (e.g. see instant figure 1 and/or figure 3, where the ‘subscript D’ in the shown variables indicates the delay domain (in regards previously addressed phrases “delay-time domain” and/or “delay-sequency domain”)). Where the ‘delay domain/axis’ is never converted, and the delay domain (as well as the delay-time domain/axis’s) is seemly thrown away via the vectorization function generating ‘signal s’, as shown by equation 4 of the instant specification on listed page 8. Where a ‘vec function’ converts a matrix into a single column vector by stacking its columns on top of each other.
Where the ambiguous meaning of the phrases “delay domain”, “delay-time domain” and/or “delay-sequency domain” fail(s) the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II, which also renders the scope of claim 1 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II).
Section 3.2 (below):
Additionally but not exclusively, the limitation (generating a plurality of candidate matrices in a delay-time domain by multiplying data in row units in a delay-sequency domain by a plurality of preset scrambled Walsh-Hadamard transform (S-WHT) matrices or generating a plurality of candidate matrices in a delay-time domain by scrambling the data in row units in the delay-sequency domain by using a plurality of preset scramble vectors and then multiplying the scrambled data by the S-WHT matrices) contradicts the instant specification.
Where the instant specification only performs implements one scrambling operation not two scrambling operations. Where the cited limitation above requires the data being directly scrambled (in the delay-sequency domain) and the followed by a second ‘scrambled Walsh-Hadamard transform (S-WHT)’; however the instant specification show that when the data is directly scrambled (in the delay-sequency domain) then a regular WHT (not S-WHT) is applied to the scrambled data; see listed page 9, lines 20-25 of the instant specification, which states:
Meanwhile, the transmitting device 102 may multiply data in row units in the delay-sequency domain by a plurality of scramble vectors in element-wise and then multiply the multiplication result by the WHT [[not S-WHT]] to generate a plurality of candidate matrices in the delay-time domain. That is, it is also possible to scramble data in row units in the delay-sequence domain using a scramble vector and then multiply the data scrambling result by the WHT to generate multiple candidate matrices in the delay-time domain.
Where the seeming contradiction between Detailed Description of the instant specification and the cited/emphasized limitations above fail(s) the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II, which also renders the scope of claim 1 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II).
Section 3.3 (below):
Independent claim 9 uses substantially the same claim language as claim 1 and thus is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar rationale as claim 1 (as addressed supra).
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of parent independent claim (addressed above) and thus are each rejected for similar rationale as claim 1 (and/or claim 9) above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Note allowable subject matter is not currently addressed but will be revisited after the various indefiniteness issues (see above) have been corrected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the 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 on (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 7/11/2026
Prosecution Insights