UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`16/324,303
`
`02/08/2019
`
`Tetsuya YAMAMOTO
`
`733456.569USPC
`
`5863
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`YEA” H'HAE P
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2471
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/ 1 2/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/324,303
`Examiner
`Jl-HAE YEA
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAMAMOTO et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2471
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 08 February 2019.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`8)
`Claim(s 110Is/are rejected
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 08 February 2019 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:i All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`SD Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20200303
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`2.
`
`Although the information disclosure statement field on 3/2/2020 appears to
`
`comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, the U.S. Patent
`
`document 2010/0080809 and Foreign Patent Document JP 2011-055833 do not appear
`
`relevant to the instant application. It has been placed in the application file, but the
`
`information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`3.
`
`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 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.
`
`4.
`
`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 —
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 3
`
`(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.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated
`
`by ZTE Corp, ZTE Microelectronics (“Discussion on FB-OFDM of new waveform for
`
`new radio interface”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #85, R1 -164265, 23th-27th May
`
`2016, Section 2, hereinafter ZTE).
`
`Re claim 1:
`
`ZTE discloses a transmission apparatus, comprising: an IFFT section that
`
`performs IFFT processing on a transmission signal (see, ZTE: Fig. 1, reference
`
`“IFFT in Every Symbol”; section 2, “The process of a bank of filters upon
`
`multiple subcarriers can be implemented by conducting IFFT on all
`
`subcarriers first and passing the resultant data through a polyphase
`
`filter”); a control section that determines a signal waveform configuration for the
`
`transmission signal after the IFFT processing in accordance with a
`
`communication environment of the transmission apparatus (see, ZTE: Fig. 1,
`
`reference “Pulse Function Selection ”; section 2, “The pulse function
`
`selection module chooses the pulse function according to the
`
`requirements under different scenarios”); and a Post-IFFT section that
`
`performs Post-IFFT processing on the transmission signal after the IFFT
`
`processing based on the determined signal waveform configuration (see, ZTE:
`
`Fig. 1, reference “Polyphase Filter”; section 2, “The operation of polyphase
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 4
`
`filter after IFFT is equivalent to windowing in time domain and significantly
`
`reduces the complexity in filtering each subcarrier”).
`
`Re claim 7:
`
`ZTE further discloses wherein the signal waveform configuration is
`
`indicated to the transmission apparatus via higher-layer signaling or a control
`
`channel (see, ZTE: Fig. 1, reference “Pulse Function Selection”; section 2,
`
`“The pulse function selection module chooses the pulse function
`
`according to the requirements under different scenarios”. A selection of
`
`different waveforms (i.e., different pulse functions) is controlled by a
`
`higher-layer signaling or a control channel (i.e., pulse function selection)
`
`prior to the signal is filtered with the polyphaser filter according to the Fig.
`
`1).
`
`Re claim 8:
`
`ZTE discloses a reception apparatus, comprising: a control section that
`
`determines a signal waveform configuration for a signal transmitted from a
`
`transmission apparatus, in accordance with a communication environment of the
`
`transmission apparatus (see, ZTE: Fig. 2, reference “Pulse Function
`
`Selection”; section 2, “Similar to the transmitter side, the receiver can have
`
`the same equation (2) for some other OFDM-based multi-carrier wave forms
`
`besides FB-OFDM, which lead to a common receiver block diagram as
`
`shown in Fig. 2 for these waveforms”. As such, the pulse function selection
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 5
`
`module in the receiver also chooses the pulse function according to the
`
`requirements under different scenarios.); a Pre-FFT section that performs
`
`Pre-FFT processing on the signal based on the determined signal waveform
`
`configuration (see, 2TE: Fig. 2, reference “Polyphase Filter”; section 2, “the
`
`polyphaser filter on receiver side can utilize a number of algorithms (such
`
`as MF, 2F and MMSE) to suppress inter-symbol interference”); and an FFT
`
`section that performs FFT processing on the signal after the Pre- FFT processing
`
`(see, 2TE: Fig. 2, reference “FFT”; section 2, “the baseband signal is
`
`passed through a polyphase filter followed by FFT”).
`
`Re claim 9:
`
`Claim 9 is directed towards the method describing the steps and the
`
`functions of the transmission apparatus of claim 1. There is no additional
`
`limitation in claim 9, not claimed in claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected on the same
`
`grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
`
`Re claim 10:
`
`Claim 10 is directed towards the method describing the steps and the
`
`functions of the reception apparatus of claim 8. There is no additional limitation in
`
`claim 10, not claimed in claim 8. Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of
`
`rejection set forth in claim 8.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 6
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`
`owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
`
`prior art against the later invention.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in
`
`view of Venkatesan et al. (“OFDM for 5G: Cyclic Prefix versus Zero Postfix, and
`
`Filtering versus Windowing”, 2016 IEEE ICC, hereinafter Venkatesan).
`
`Re claim 2:
`
`As discussed above, ZTE discloses all limitations in claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 7
`
`ZTE does not explicitly disclose the control section determines to apply
`
`filtering or windowing as the signal waveform configuration when a plurality of
`
`transmission apparatuses operate asynchronously.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Venkatesan discloses the control section
`
`determines to apply filtering or windowing as the signal waveform configuration
`
`when a plurality of transmission apparatuses operate asynchronously (see,
`
`Venkatesan: Abstract, “in a multiuser system operating asynchronously
`
`and with user-specific subcarrier spacing and symbol period, filtering and
`
`windowing yield substantial and comparable rate gains over standard
`
`OFDM when implemented at both transmitter and receiver”).
`
`Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include the
`
`teachings of Venkatesan in order to yield substantial and comparable rate gains
`
`over standard OFDM either by applying filtering or windowing (see, Venkatesan:
`
`Abstract).
`
`9.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in
`
`view of Orange, Spreadtrum, lnterDigitaI, ZTE, Cohere, Telstra,
`
`(“WF on waveform
`
`candidates categorization”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #85, R1 -1 65666, 23th-27th
`
`May 2016, hereinafter OrangeGroup) and further in view of Orange (“Flexibly
`
`Configured OFDM (FC-OFDM) waveform”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #85, R1-
`
`164619, 23th-27th May 2016, hereinafter Orange).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Re claim 3:
`
`Page 8
`
`As discussed above, ZTE discloses all limitations in claim 1.
`
`ZTE does not explicitly disclose wherein the control section determines
`
`not to apply filtering or determines to apply windowing as the signal waveform
`
`configuration when low latency communication is required for the transmission
`
`apparatus.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, OrangeGroup discloses wherein the
`
`control section determines not to apply filtering or determines to apply windowing
`
`as the signal waveform configuration (see, OrangeGroup: Slide 4, Proposal)
`
`when low latency communication is required for the transmission apparatus (see,
`
`Orange: Section 4.2).
`
`Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include the
`
`teachings of OrangeGroup and to combine with the teachings of Orange in order
`
`to determine applicable signal processing between filtering or windowing based
`
`on a simple lookup depending on use cases. For example, FC-OFDM waveform
`
`is suitable for multi-carrier mode Ultra Reliable and Low Latency Communication
`
`(URLLC) (see, Orange: Section 4.2), which is suitable for a time domain
`
`windowing according to OrangeGroup (see, OrangeGroup: Slide 4, Proposal).
`
`One would have been motivated to make such a combination because
`
`creating a control section (i.e., “pulse function selection” as mentioned above)
`
`that selects an appropriate waveform configuration depending on the
`
`communication environment reduces the complexity in system design which is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 9
`
`well-known in the art, and would have been consistent with the rationale of using
`
`known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same
`
`way to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(C)) under KSR
`
`International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97
`
`(2007)
`
`10.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in
`
`view of Qualcomm Incorporated (“Waveform Candidates”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1
`
`Meeting #84b, R1-162199, 11th-15th April 2016, hereinafter Qualcomm).
`
`Re claim 4:
`
`As discussed above, ZTE discloses all limitations in claim 1.
`
`ZTE does not explicitly disclose wherein the control section determines to
`
`apply filtering as the signal waveform configuration when an allocation bandwidth
`
`allocated for communication of the transmission apparatus is less than a
`
`threshold, and determines not to apply filtering or determines to apply windowing
`
`as the signal waveform configuration when the allocation bandwidth is equal to or
`
`greater than the threshold.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Qualcomm discloses wherein the control
`
`section determines to apply filtering as the signal waveform configuration (see,
`
`Qualcomm: Table 2-11, UFMC and FCP-OFDM), when an allocation bandwidth
`
`allocated for communication of the transmission apparatus is less than a
`
`threshold (see, Qualcomm: Sections 2.2.3, “To suppress 00B interference,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 10
`
`the tx filter has to be carefully designed as a band-pass filter which only
`
`passes the assigned RB.”), and determines not to apply filtering or determines
`
`to apply windowing as the signal waveform configuration when the allocation
`
`bandwidth is equal to or greater than the threshold (see, Qualcomm: Table 2-
`
`1 1, all other waveforms other than UFMC and FCP-OFDM).
`
`Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include the
`
`teachings of Qualcomm in order apply an optimal pulse function selector (see,
`
`ZTE: Fig. 1, reference “Pulse Function Selection”) when bandwidth
`
`dependent band pass filter is used on order to reduce the OOB leakage from the
`
`signal and to suppress OOB inteference (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2.5,
`
`“Different from WOLA (or other pulse-shaping schemes based on
`
`windowing approach, the band pass filter of F-OFDM is bandwidth
`
`dependent. Therefore the filters will need to be dynamically constructed (or
`
`selected) based on the tone allocation. ”).
`
`11.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in
`
`view of OrangeGroup, and further in view of NTT Docomo, Inc. (“Comparison of
`
`candidate waveforms”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #85, R1-165173, 23th-27th May
`
`2016, hereinafter NTT Docomo).
`
`Re claim 5:
`
`As discussed above, ZTE discloses all limitations in claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 11
`
`ZTE does not explicitly disclose wherein the control section determines to
`
`apply neither filtering nor windowing as the signal waveform configuration when a
`
`guard band is configured in an adjacent band adjacent to an allocation band
`
`allocated for communication of the transmission apparatus, and determines to
`
`apply filtering or windowing as the signal waveform configuration when no guard
`
`band is configured in the adjacent band.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, OrangeGroup and NTT Docomo disclose
`
`wherein the control section determines to apply neither filtering nor windowing as
`
`the signal waveform configuration (see OrangeGroup: Slide 4, Proposal for
`
`waveforms such as CP-OFDM, DFT-s-OFDM, ZT-s-OFDM) when a guard band
`
`is configured in an adjacent band adjacent to an allocation band allocated for
`
`communication of the transmission apparatus (see, NTT Docomo: Summary 6,
`
`Observation 4, “CP-OFDM show worst performance due to high
`
`interference from neighboring user, both F00 and TDD”), and determines to
`
`apply filtering or windowing as the signal waveform configuration when no guard
`
`band is configured in the adjacent band (see, OrangeGroup: Slide 4, all other
`
`waveforms other than CP-OFDM, DFT-s-OFDM, ZT-s-OFDM, etc. where no
`
`guard band is configured).
`
`Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include the
`
`teachings of OrangeGroup and to combine with the teachings of NTT Docomo in
`
`order to practically implement FFT/IFFT based waveform synthesis and selection
`
`based on a previously defined communication environment scenarios and to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 12
`
`implement an optimal signal processing options for different communication
`
`environments and recommended waveforms for different use cases (see,
`
`OrangeGroup: Slide 4).
`
`12.
`
`Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in
`
`view of Qualcomm (“5G Waveform & Multiple Access Techniques”, November 4, 2015,
`
`hereinafter Qualcomm2).
`
`Re claim 6:
`
`As discussed above, ZTE discloses all limitations in claim 1.
`
`ZTE does not explicitly disclose wherein a correspondence relationship
`
`between the communication environment and the signal waveform configuration
`
`is previously defined.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Qualcomm2 discloses wherein a
`
`correspondence relationship between the communication environment and the
`
`signal waveform configuration is previously defined (see, Qualcomm2: Slide
`
`17).
`
`Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include the
`
`teachings of Qualcomm2 in order to practically implement FFT/IFFT based
`
`waveform synthesis and selection based on a previously defined communication
`
`environment scenarios and to implement an optimal signal processing options for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 13
`
`different communication environments and recommended waveforms for different
`
`use cases such as eMBB, mMTC, and URLLC (see, Qualcomm2: Slide 17).
`
`Conclusion
`
`13.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-
`
`3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 6am-2pm, ET.
`
`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, Chi Pham can be reached on (571) 272-3179. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private
`
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/324,303
`Art Unit: 2471
`
`Page 14
`
`to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -
`
`272-1000.
`
`/J.Y./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2471
`
`/CHI H PHAM/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
`
`