Obviousness

I cannot perform a comprehensive obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as requested, because the provided "Prior Art section" of the patent information only lists "Prior art keywords" (time delay, stage, signal, digital, output signal) and a "Prior art date" (2016-08-01). It does not provide specific prior art documents (e.g., patents, publications) that can be identified, analyzed for their teachings, and then combined.

A proper obviousness analysis requires:

1. Identifying the scope and content of the prior art: This involves citing specific prior art references (e.g., U.S. Patent X, Publication Y).
2. Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art: This requires comparing the claims of US11082055 to the teachings of the identified prior art references.
3. Determining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art: While generally understood in this field as someone skilled in digital signal processing, particularly with ADCs, beamforming, and embedded systems, specific prior art helps define the context.
4. Identifying motivation to combine or modify the prior art: This is the crucial step of explaining why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined specific prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, and whether there was a reasonable expectation of success.

Without specific prior art references, any attempt to combine them would be speculative and not grounded in actual existing art. Therefore, I cannot identify combinations of prior art references or explain the motivation to combine them, as the foundational documents are missing from the provided "Prior Art section."