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 .
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method steps recited in each of the claims must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Figures 10A and 10B show the resulting symbol but does not disclose the recited method steps. Figure 11 shows a flow chart but the steps of figure 11 are not the steps of the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Vrcelj et al (US 2006/0221810).
Regarding claim 1, Vrcelj discloses a method of generating a symbol in a plurality of symbols (figure 5 shows the first symbol.), the method comprising:
generating a main sequence of complex-valued time domain samples (Figure 1: traffic data and pilots are processed digitally and input to the OFDM modulator 130. Figure 5 shows the transformed symbol N comprising N samples. The transformed symbol N can be labelled the main sequence.);
generating a first auxiliary sequence of complex-valued time domain samples based on the main sequence (figure 5: part of the transformed symbol is used to generate a cyclic prefix C. Any percentage of cyclic prefix C sequence can be labelled the first auxiliary sequence. Figure 5 shows the cyclic prefix C is based on the main sequence (transformed symbol N).);
generating a second auxiliary sequence of complex-valued time domain samples based on the main sequence (figure 5: part of the transformed symbol is used to generate a cyclic prefix C. The remaining percentage of cyclic prefix C that is not the portion of C labelled the first auxiliary sequence can be labelled a second auxiliary sequence. This second auxiliary sequence follows the first auxiliary sequence.);
forming the symbol as the first auxiliary sequence, followed by the second auxiliary sequence followed by the main sequence (figure 5 shows the first portion of the cyclic prefix followed by the second portion of the cyclic prefix followed by the transformed symbol.); and
transmitting the symbol to one or more receiving devices (Figure 1: transmitter 110 transmits the symbol to one or more receiving devices 150.).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,158,518. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference discloses additional limitations that are not recited in instant claim 1. The more specific anticipates the broader.
Regarding claim 1, the reference discloses the three generating steps, the forming step and the transmitting step. The reference further discloses additional detail not recited in the instant claim 1.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ko et al (US 2011/0013718) discloses the transmitter in figure 51 for transmitting the symbol shown in figure 53. The transmitter generates the auxiliary sequences based on the main sequences then transmits the symbol to a receiver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M. BURD whose telephone number is (571)272-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/KEVIN M BURD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights