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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on June 8, 2025. Claims 1-14 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on June 8, 2025 are accepted.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 9, 6, and 13 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 2 is unclear. it is not clear how the input signal is compared with the peak of the calculation result. The claim does not indicate whether the input signal is single valued function. Therefore, ambiguity exits how the comparison is done. Is the peak of input signal is compared with the peak of the peak of the calculation result or average of the input signal is compared with the peak of the calculation result?
Claim 9 exhibits similar deficiency.
Claim 6 recites the terms "the present value" in “the low-pass filtering result”, “the previous value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appear claim 6 should be dependent on claim 5. For the examining purpose, those terms shall be interpreted accordingly to claim 5.
Claim 13 exhibits similar deficiency.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shellhammer et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20130094619 A1), hereinafter, Shellhammer.
Regarding claim 1:
Shellhammer teaches:
A method for detecting a target detection packet, wherein the method is applicable to a packet detector, and the method comprises:
utilizing a match filter of the packet detector to perform match filtering on an input signal based on a reference sequence to generate a match filtering output, wherein the reference sequence corresponds to the target detection packet (Fig. 6A, step 605, shows receiving a signal (input signal). Paragraph 0072 discloses a match filter perform match filtering in the input signal based on known training field (reference sequence) to generate a output (match filtering output));
utilizing a post-calculation circuit of the packet detector to perform calculation on the match filtering output to generate a calculation result (Fig. 6A, step 615, shows performing autocorrelation (calculation) on the matched filter output to generate a result as stated in paragraph 0072 “Further, at a block 615 the first N.sub.0 terms of each block of N terms of the output y(n) are autocorrelated similar to as discussed above, where N.sub.0 is less than N.” );
utilizing a comparator of the packet detector to compare the calculation result with a predetermined threshold to generate a comparison result; and determining whether the input signal is the target detection packet or not according to the comparison result (Fig. 6A, step 620, discloses comparing the autocorrelation result to threshold to determine whether the target packet is detected as stated in paragraph 00072 “At a block 620, the results of the autocorrelation are compared to a threshold to determine whether the signal r(n) includes a sequence of known training fields and thus includes a data packet.” ).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shellhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shellhammer further teaches wherein a peak of the calculation result when the input signal is the target detection packet is greater than a peak of the calculation result when the input signal is a single-frequency signal (paragraph 0068 discloses input signal can be single frequency).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shellhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shellhammer further teaches wherein the step of determining whether the input signal is the target detection packet according to the comparison result comprises: in response to the calculation result being periodically greater than the predetermined threshold, determining that the input signal is the target detection packet (Fig. 5, element 525 shows on the calculation results Z(n) is greater than threshold T, determining the target packet is detected as stated in paragraph 0066 “The output z(n) of the absolute value module 520 is input into the threshold module 525 which compares the value of z(n) to a threshold value T. In one implementation, if the value of z(n)>T, the signal detector 218 of the wireless device 202r determines that a received signal r(n) has a sequence of known training fields and the signal detector 218 of the wireless device 202r may determine that a data packet is detected”).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shellhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shellhammer further teaches wherein the step of determining whether the input signal is the target detection packet according to the comparison result comprises: in response to the calculation result being continuously less than the predetermined threshold, determining that the input signal is not the target detection packet (Fig. 5, element 525 shows on the calculation results Z(n) is less than threshold T, determining the target packet is not detected as stated in paragraph 0066 “Further, in such an implementation, if the value of z(n)<T, the signal detector 218 of the wireless device 202r determines that a received signal r(n) does not have a sequence of known training fields and the signal detector 218 of the wireless device 202r may determine that a data packet is not detected”).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shellhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shellhammer further teaches wherein the step of utilizing the post-calculation circuit of the packet detector to perform calculation on the match filtering output to generate the calculation result comprises: calculating a present value of a low-pass filtering result according to a previous value of the low-pass filtering result, a present value of the match filtering output and a preset parameter; and generating a present value of the calculation result according to the present value of the low-pass filtering result and the present value of the match filtering output (paragraph 0064 discloses implementation of low pass filter using shift registers. The output of the matched filter is arranged in consecutive blocks and computing dot product of present block and previous block to generate autocorrelation results).
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is directed towards a packet detector performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 is directed towards a packet detector performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 is directed towards a packet detector performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 is directed towards a packet detector performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is directed towards a packet detector performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shellhammer in view of Gaikwad et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20070019749 A1), hereinafter, Gaikwad.
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shellhammer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shellhammer does not teach wherein the step of utilizing the post-calculation circuit of the packet detector to perform calculation on the match filtering output to generate the calculation result comprises: summing multiple values of the match filtering output over a first time interval to generate a first summation result; summing multiple values of the match filtering output over a second time interval to generate a second summation result; and calculating a ratio of the second summation result to the first summation result to generate the calculation result.
Gaikwad teaches wherein the step of utilizing the post-calculation circuit of the packet detector to perform calculation on the match filtering output to generate the calculation result comprises: summing multiple values of the match filtering output over a first time interval to generate a first summation result; summing multiple values of the match filtering output over a second time interval to generate a second summation result; and calculating a ratio of the second summation result to the first summation result to generate the calculation result (Fig. 9 shows matched filtering outputs with first peak and second peak and calculating relative difference of magnitudes as expanded in paragraphs 0118-0119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shellhammer to incorporate the teaching of Gaikwad about matched filtering outputs with first peak and second peak and calculating relative difference of magnitudes. One would be motivated to do that to reduce false detection (see paragraph 0018 of Gaikwad).
Claim 14 is directed towards a packet detector performing the method of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
July 16, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights