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 .
Examiner’s Remark
Examiner notes that the citations to the instant application’s specification amendments on Pg. 3 (page 16, line 29 to page 17, line 8) (page 18, lines 27-32) are incorrect and instead the citations should reflect, respectively, (Pg. 16, lines 8-16) (Pg. 17, lines 35-36; Pg. 18, lines 1-5) as found in the specification filed 12/28/2021 in the application file wrapper.
Applicant is reminded of the proper way to reference the Specification in their Remarks, with respect to the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section spanning Pg. 16-18, when filing amendments. Applicant should refer to the specification as submitted and as it appears in the application file wrapper. Any reference to disclosure outside of the file wrapper is considered improper.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 22 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the abstract and specification objections, and to the Claims have overcome the claim objections.
Claim Construction
Regarding claim 1, the preamble is given patentable weight. Claim 1 contains the limitation “the analog input signals”, “the analog output signals”, and “the signal processing function” in the body, which is referring to the limitations as recited in the preamble. A skilled person in the art reading the claims would consider the claim in view of the body and preamble, and identify them limited to the technological environment of a programmable analog processing array for programmable time-discrete processing. The body of the claim depends on the preamble for completeness, and gives life, meaning, and vitality to this claim. Therefore, the preamble of claim 1 should be afforded patentable weight.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a delay element”, “an analog multiplier element”, “an analog adder element”, “an analog resample element”, “a configuration control unit” first recited in claim 1,
“an associated control element” first recited in claim 10, and
“a clock generation unit” first recited in claim 11.
The term “element” and “unit” have been interpreted as a generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181.I.A. Furthermore, some of these elements/units are modified by functional language, and not modified by structure or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure as described in the specification is identified as follows:
the “delay element” 202 is included in the processing slice 200 and is coupled to the analog multiplier element 206 as in Fig. 2 (Pg. 18, lines 20-29; Pg. 13, lines 15-23), and includes input and output connections and equivalents as further disclosed as in (Fig. 7, "702"; Pg. 26, lines 6-19, 30-33), (Fig. 15, "1500"; Pg. 29, lines 24-35; Pg. 30, lines 1-17), (Fig. 16, "1600"; Pg. 30, lines 18-24; Pg. 31, lines 9-14).
the “analog multiplier element” 206 is included in the processing slice 200 and is coupled to the delay element 202 and the analog adder element 210 as in Fig. 2 (Pg. 10, lines 20-31; Pg. 11, lines 1-7; Pg. 19, lines 4-16), and includes input and output connections and equivalents further disclosed as in (Fig. 6, "606"; Pg. 24, lines 26-36; Pg. 25, lines 1-9), (Fig. 8, "802"; Pg. 26, lines 33-35; Pg. 27, lines 1-6), (Fig. 9, "900"; Pg. 27, lines 13-27), (Fig. 13, "1300", Fig. 14, "1400"; Pg. 29, lines 3-23), (Fig. 15, “1510.1, 1510.2, 1510.3, …, 1510.n”; Pg. 30, lines 7-11).
the “analog adder element” 210 is included in the processing slice 200 and is coupled to the analog multiplier element 206 as in Fig. 2 (Pg. 7, lines 30-35; Pg. 19, lines 17-29), and includes input and output connections and equivalents as further disclosed as in (Fig. 6, "608"; Pg. 24, lines 27-36; Pg. 25, lines 15-29), (Fig. 11, "1100"; Pg. 28, lines 9-25), (Fig. 12, "1200"; Pg. 28, lines 26-36; Pg. 29, lines 1-2).
the “analog resample element” 212 is included in the processing slice 200 as in Fig. 2 (Pg. 4, lines 24-29; Pg. 19, lines 30-34), and includes input and output connections and equivalents as further disclosed as in (Fig. 6, "610"; Pg. 24, lines 27-29; Pg. 25, lines 20-27).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the “configuration control unit”. Claims 2-17 recite the same limitations by reason of dependence. Claim 10 recites the “associated control element”. Claim 11 recites the “clock generation unit”. These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to provide adequate written description of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions of this limitation. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below for further details as to the requirement for the written description.
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 1-20 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 limitation “configuration control unit” as recited in claim 1, “associated control element” as recited in claim 10, and “clock generation unit” as recited in claim 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As to the “configuration control unit”, this unit is merely described in (Pg. 6, lines 32-34; Pg. 9, lines 8-35; Pg. 10. lines 1-3; Pg. 11, lines 1-7; Pg. 12, lines 11-20, 32-34) as disclosed in the specification. However, these descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification. In the drawings, the unit is illustrated as “130” in Fig. 1 (Pg. 17, lines 18-23, 35-36; Pg. 18, lines 1-5, 9-13; Pg. 20, lines 11-16, 21-27; Pg. 21, lines 14-24; Pg. 22, lines 1-8; Pg. 24, lines 19-23) and “430” in Fig. 4 (Pg. 24, lines 4-7). However, it is merely described as a black box. There is insufficient structure to perform the claimed functions. Claims 2-17 recite the same limitation by reasons of dependence to claim 1, and thus possess the same deficiency.
As to the “associated control element” this element is merely described in (Pg. 10, lines 1-12; Pg. 13, lines 1-10) as disclosed in the specification. These descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification. There is insufficient structure to perform the claimed functions.
As to the “clock generation unit” this unit is merely described in (Pg. 13, lines 12-15) as disclosed in the specification. These descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification. There is insufficient structure to perform the claimed functions.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 14 inherits the same deficiency as claim 13 by reason of dependence.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, 12, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 6, 12, and 16 are rejected as being of improper dependent form as everything in the claim limitations are claimed by virtue of “the delay element” and “the multiplier element” in claim 1 as these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See “Claim Interpretation” for further details regarding what the limitations are being interpreted to cover, such as the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are rejected, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the respective rejections under 35 USC 112(a), 35 USC 112(b), and 35 USC 112(d).
Reasons for indicating allowable subject matter can be found in the Non-Final Office Action filed 06/30/2025.
Response to Arguments
Specification. The amendments to the specification have overcome the abstract and specification objections.
Claims. The amendments to the claims have overcome the claims objections.
35 USC 112(a). The 112(f) interpretation is maintained. Applicant argues the following limitations:
“configuration control unit” (see Remarks, Pg. 16, Para. 5; Pg. 17, Para. 1-3)
The paragraphs which Applicant points to in the published specification merely describe the unit in terms of its functionalities. The specification does not describe what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the limitation. To the extent Applicant argues that the unit may be implemented as a single integrated-circuit package or by means of a circuit board or as a programmable processor or microcontroller equipped with software does not provide a sufficient disclosure for functionality claimed as it is unclear what structure, materials, or acts perform them within these alleged embodiments. A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. See MPEP 2181(IV).
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
“associated control element” (see Remarks, Pg. 17, Para. 4)
The paragraphs which Applicant points to in the published specification merely describe the element in terms of its functionalities. The specification does not describe what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the limitation. A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. See MPEP 2181(IV).
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
“clock generation unit” (see Remarks, Pg. 17, Para. 5)
The paragraphs which Applicant points to in the published specification merely describe the unit in terms of its functionalities. The specification does not describe what structure, materials, or acts perform the function recited in the limitation. A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. See MPEP 2181(IV).
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
35 USC 112(d). Regarding the rejection of claims 6, 12, and 16 in section 14 on page 13 of the detailed action on the ground of Section 112(d), on its face, each of these claims do in fact further limit the multiplier element, the delay element, and the multiplier element, respectively, of claim 1 (see Remarks, Pg. 18, Para. 1).
The 112(f) interpretation invoked by these limitations has been maintained. Thus, because this interpretation is maintained, claims 6, 12, and 16 have been found to not further limit the subject matter as such limitations have effectively been incorporated into claim 1, rendering claims 6, 12, and 16 improper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARKUS A VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (703)756-1603. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/MARKUS ANTHONY VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151