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 .
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 11 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2, 5 – 6 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,483 (hereinafter Reis ’483) in view of Giallorenzi et al (US 8,175,134).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Re claim 2,
Claim 2 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Reis ’483
A method, comprising: receiving, by a particular device, a random number seed transmitted from a beaconing device; generating, by the particular device, a sequence of random numbers based on the random number seed; determining, by the particular device, a sequence of spreading code chips associated with the sequence of random numbers; spreading, by the particular device, symbols of a message using respective spreading code chips of the sequence of spreading code chips; and transmitting, by the particular device, the message.
A method, comprising: coordinating, by a particular device, a random number seed that is generated by a beaconing device and transmitted to one or more remote devices; generating, by the particular device, one or more random numbers based on the random number seed; determining, by the particular device, one or more spreading code chips associated with the one or more random numbers; and communicating, by the particular device, a spread spectrum message between the beaconing device and a specific remote device of the one or more remote devices based on one of either spreading or de-spreading the spread spectrum message according to the one or more spreading code chips.
In view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 1 of Reis ’483 by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claim 1.
Furthermore, because omission element(s) in the claim would make the claim in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim in the instant application is merely an obvious variation of the claim in the parent application. It is well settled that omission of an element and it function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969). In light of the foregoing discussion, the broad claim of the instant application is rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower copending claim.
Claim 1 of Reis ’483 does not specifically recite of the one or more random numbers being a sequence of random numbers and the one or more spreading code chips being a sequence spreading code chips.
Giallorenzi teaches of a random number generator that comprises a pseudo random number generator for generating a sequence of pseudo random numbers (Col 6, Lines 50 – 64) and a sequence spreading code chips (Col 1, Lines 40 – 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed sequencing for accurate processing.
Claims 4, 6 and 11 of the instant application is identical/similar with claims 2 and 5 – 6 of Reis ’483.
Re claim 4,
Claim 4 of Instant Application
Claim 6 of Reis ’483
The method of claim 2, wherein the sequence of spreading code chips is generated using a chip table.
The method as in claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more spreading code chips associated with the one or more random numbers is based on one of either using a chip table or a computer program.
Re claim 6,
Claim 6 of Instant Application
Claim 5 of Reis ’483
The method of claim 2, wherein the random number seed is received via a beacon signal transmitted to a plurality of remote devices.
The method as in claim 1, wherein the coordinating comprises: receiving the random number seed within a beacon message from the beaconing device.
Re claim 11,
Claim 11 of Instant Application
Claim 2 of Reis ’483
The method of claim 2, wherein the particular device is a user equipment device.
The method as in claim 1, wherein the beaconing device is a ground station for satellite communication, and wherein the one or more remote devices comprise mobile terminals.
Re claim 21,
Claim 21 of Instant Application
Claim 19 of Reis ’483
A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a computer of a particular device to execute a method comprising: receiving a random number seed transmitted from a beaconing device; generating a sequence of random numbers based on the random number seed; determining a sequence of spreading code chips associated with the sequence of random numbers; spreading symbols of a message using respective spreading code chips of the sequence of spreading code chips; and transmitting the message.
A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing program instructions that cause a computer of a particular device to execute a method comprising: coordinating a random number seed that is generated by a beaconing device and transmitted to one or more remote devices; generating one or more random numbers based on the random number seed; determining one or more spreading code chips associated with the one or more random numbers; and communicating a spread spectrum message between the beaconing device and a specific remote device of the one or more remote devices based on one of either spreading or de-spreading the spread spectrum message according to the one or more spreading code chips.
In view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 19 of Reis ’483 by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claim 19.
Furthermore, because omission element(s) in the claim would make the claim in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim in the instant application is merely an obvious variation of the claim in the parent application. It is well settled that omission of an element and it function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969). In light of the foregoing discussion, the broad claim of the instant application is rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower copending claim.
Claim 19 of Reis ’483 does not specifically recite of the one or more random numbers being a sequence of random numbers and the one or more spreading code chips being a sequence spreading code chips.
Giallorenzi teaches of a random number generator that comprises a pseudo random number generator for generating a sequence of pseudo random numbers (Col 6, Lines 50 – 64) and a sequence spreading code chips (Col 1, Lines 40 - 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed sequencing for accurate processing.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,483 (hereinafter Reis ’483) and Giallorenzi in view of Miyamoto et al (US 2022/0075495).
Re claim 3, claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein each symbol of the message is spread using a different spreading code chip.
Miyamoto teaches of each symbol of the message is spread using a different spreading code chip (Paragraph 0037 and Fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each symbol of the message spread using a different spreading code chip to effectively reduce narrowband interference and background noise.
Claims 5 and 7 – 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,483 (hereinafter Reis ’483) and Giallorenzi in view of Felton et al (US 2013/0205080).
Re claim 5,
Claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 2 except of wherein the sequence of random numbers is generated using a random number generator.
Felton teaches of wherein the sequence of random numbers is generated using a random number generator (Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have random number generator generate the sequence of random numbers for accurate processing.
Re claim 7,
Claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 2 except of wherein the sequence of random numbers is updated after transmitting a predetermined number of symbols.
Felton teaches of wherein the sequence of random numbers is updated after transmitting a predetermined number of symbols (Paragraph 0093).
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 sequence of random numbers to be updated after transmitting a predetermined number of symbols so as to prevent pattern repetition.
Re claim 8,
Claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 2 except of further comprising: generating a next random number after transmitting one or more symbols.
Felton teaches of generating a next random number after transmitting one or more symbols (Paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have generated a next random number after transmitting one or more symbols so as to prevent pattern repetition.
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,483 (hereinafter Reis ’483) and Giallorenzi in view of Al-Eidan (10,491,261).
Re claim 9, claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 2 except of wherein the respective spreading code chips are based on an orthogonal variable spreading factor spread spectrum scheme.
Al-Eidan teaches of respective spreading code chips being based on an orthogonal variable spreading factor spread spectrum scheme (Col 19, Lines 13 – 17).
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 respective spreading code chips being based on an orthogonal variable spreading factor spread spectrum scheme for generating orthogonal codes and improved spectral efficiency.
Re claim 10, claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 2 except of wherein the message is transmitted at a power density below a noise level.
Al-Eidan teaches of a message transmitted at a power density below a noise level (Col 3, Lines 4 – 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have message transmitted at a power density below a noise level so as to make it difficult to intercept, detect, and demodulate/decode the message signal directly without knowledge of the unique Chip/PN (“pseudo-noise”) code.
Claims 12, 14 – 15 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2 and 5 – 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,483 (hereinafter Reis ’483) in view of Giallorenzi.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Re claim 12,
Claim 12 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of Reis ’483
An apparatus, comprising: a processor configured to execute one or more processes; a communication interface; and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor that when executed is configured to: receive a random number seed transmitted from a beaconing device; generate a sequence of random numbers based on the random number seed; determine a sequence of spreading code chips associated with the sequence of random numbers; spread symbols of a message using respective spreading code chips of the sequence of spreading code chips; and transmit the message.
A method, comprising: coordinating, by a particular device, a random number seed that is generated by a beaconing device and transmitted to one or more remote devices; generating, by the particular device, one or more random numbers based on the random number seed; determining, by the particular device, one or more spreading code chips associated with the one or more random numbers; and communicating, by the particular device, a spread spectrum message between the beaconing device and a specific remote device of the one or more remote devices based on one of either spreading or de-spreading the spread spectrum message according to the one or more spreading code chips.
In view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claim 1 of Reis ’483 by eliminating the italicized portion of limitation of claim 1.
Furthermore, because omission element(s) in the claim would make the claim in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim in the instant application is merely an obvious variation of the claim in the parent application. It is well settled that omission of an element and it function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969). In light of the foregoing discussion, the broad claim of the instant application is rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower copending claim.
Claim 1 of Reis ’483 does not specifically recite of the one or more random numbers being a sequence of random numbers and the one or more spreading code chips being a sequence spreading code chips. Claim 1 of Reis ’483 does not specifically recite of an apparatus, comprising: a processor configured to execute one or more processes; a communication interface; and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor.
Giallorenzi teaches of an apparatus, comprising: a processor configured to execute one or more processes; a communication interface; and a memory configured to store a process executable by the processor (Fig.1 and Col 6, Lines 1 – 11) and a random number generator that comprises a pseudo random number generator for generating a sequence of pseudo random numbers (Col 6, Lines 50 – 64) and a sequence spreading code chips (Col 1, Lines 40 - 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed sequencing for accurate processing. 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 device comprise a processor and a memory configured to store program instructions to be executed by the processor for reducing memory latency and increasing bandwidth.
Claims 14 – 15 and 20 of the instant application is identical/similar with claims 2 and 5 – 6 of Reis ’483.
Re claim 14,
Claim 14 of Instant Application
Claim 6 of Reis ’483
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the sequence of spreading code chips is generated using a chip table.
The method as in claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more spreading code chips associated with the one or more random numbers is based on one of either using a chip table or a computer program.
Re claim 15,
Claim 15 of Instant Application
Claim 5 of Reis ’483
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the random number seed is received via a beacon signal transmitted to a plurality of remote devices.
The method as in claim 1, wherein the coordinating comprises: receiving the random number seed within a beacon message from the beaconing device.
Re claim 20,
Claim 20 of Instant Application
Claim 2 of Reis ’483
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the particular device is a user equipment device.
The method as in claim 1, wherein the beaconing device is a ground station for satellite communication, and wherein the one or more remote devices comprise mobile terminals.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,483 (hereinafter Reis ’483) and Giallorenzi in view of Miyamoto et al (US 2022/0075495).
Re claim 13,
Claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 12 except of wherein each symbol of the message is spread using a different spreading code chip.
Miyamoto teaches of each symbol of the message is spread using a different spreading code chip (Paragraph 0037 and Fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each symbol of the message spread using a different spreading code chip to effectively reduce narrowband interference and background noise.
Claims 16 – 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,483 (hereinafter Reis ’483) and Giallorenzi in view of Felton.
Re claim 16,
Claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 12 except of wherein the sequence of random numbers is updated after transmitting a predetermined number of symbols.
Felton teaches of wherein the sequence of random numbers is updated after transmitting a predetermined number of symbols (Paragraph 0093).
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 sequence of random numbers to be updated after transmitting a predetermined number of symbols so as to prevent pattern repetition.
Re claim 17,
Claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 12 except of further comprising: generating a next random number after transmitting one or more symbols.
Felton teaches of generating a next random number after transmitting one or more symbols (Paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have generated a next random number after transmitting one or more symbols so as to prevent pattern repetition.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,483 (hereinafter Reis ’483) and Giallorenzi in view of Al-Eidan (10,491,261).
Re claim 18, claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 12 except of wherein the respective spreading code chips are based on an orthogonal variable spreading factor spread spectrum scheme.
Al-Eidan teaches of respective spreading code chips being based on an orthogonal variable spreading factor spread spectrum scheme (Col 19, Lines 13 – 17).
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 respective spreading code chips being based on an orthogonal variable spreading factor spread spectrum scheme for generating orthogonal codes and improved spectral efficiency.
Re claim 19, claim 1 of Reis ’483 and Giallorenzi recite all the limitations of claim 12 except of wherein the message is transmitted at a power density below a noise level.
Al-Eidan teaches of a message transmitted at a power density below a noise level (Col 3, Lines 4 – 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have message transmitted at a power density below a noise level so as to make it difficult to intercept, detect, and demodulate/decode the message signal directly without knowledge of the unique Chip/PN (“pseudo-noise”) code.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 21 would be allowable if a timely filed terminal disclaimer is filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) to overcome the provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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