DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is Final and is in response to the claims filed 08/08/2025. Claims 1-15 are currently pending, of which claims 1-15 are currently rejected. Claims 16-20 have been cancelled by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/08/2025 have been fully considered.
Abstract Objection: Objection to the abstract has been withdrawn necessitated by amendments.
Claim Objection: Objection to Claim 14 has been withdrawn necessitated by amendments.
35 U.S.C. 112 (b): Rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) regarding lack of antecedent basis, “the gram matrix buffer” in Claim 1 and “the Cholesky decomposition module” in Claim 7, have been withdrawn necessitated by amendments. 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections made to Claims 16-20 have been withdrawn due to claims being cancelled.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection on Claim 1 for omitting essential elements, “a residual calculation unit”, has been withdrawn necessitated by amendments.
35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) on elements invoking 112 (f): Applicant argues on pages 10 – 12 that the claimed elements invoking 112 (f) do not lack structure or algorithm and should therefore not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b).
Regarding the Residual Calculation Unit (RCU), Applicant argues that this element is supported by structure shown in fig. 2 and algorithm shown in Figs. 9, 10 and 11, and is further supported in paragraphs [0058], [0060], [0087]-[0088], [0090], [0095], and [0098].
Examiner agrees that Fig. 10 shows function 2 for replacing function 1 shown in Fig. 9, as disclosed in paragraph [0089], explicitly shows the algorithm of the RCU. Therefore, 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) rejection regarding the RCU has been withdrawn.
Regarding the First Inner Product Unit (First IPU), Applicant argues that this element is supported by structure shown in fig. 2 and algorithm shown in Figs. 9 and 11 (e.g., S111), and is further supported in paragraphs [0058], [0061], [0062], [0092], and Fig. 5.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged structure shown in Fig. 2 merely shows the block representing the First IPU (IPU (type 1)) and the elements coupled to it, but it does not show any specific structure disclosing the components this element consists of. The alleged algorithm shown in Fig. 9 shows an overall algorithm of the claimed invention. Applicant specifically points to the function ATrk-1, however this is merely a mathematical representation of the function performed by the First IPU and does not disclose a step by step algorithm showing how this function is performed. Additionally, Fig. 11 S111 merely recites the claimed function of the First IPU in a flow diagram, but does not disclose a step by step algorithm showing how this function is performed. Regarding the alleged support of the cited paragraphs: paragraph [0058] merely mentions the First IPU; paragraphs [0061] and [0062] merely disclose the claimed function; Fig. 5 show structure for the MAC unit included in the PEs of the Cholesky decomposition module, not related to the First IPU.
Regarding the First Sorting Unit, Applicant argues that this element is supported by structure shown in fig. 2 and algorithm shown in Figs. 9 and 11 (e.g., S112), and is further supported in paragraphs [0058], [0062], [0067], [0068], and [0093].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged structure shown in Fig. 2 merely shows the block representing the First Sorting Unit (Sorter-and-Merger) and the elements coupled to it, but it does not show any specific structure disclosing the components this element consists of. The alleged algorithm shown in Fig. 9 shows an overall algorithm of the claimed invention. Applicant specifically points to the function S0={K indices having the largest correlation value in the vector ATy}, however this is merely a mathematical representation of the function performed by the First Sorting Unit and does not disclose a step by step algorithm showing how this function is performed. Additionally, Fig. 11 S112 merely recites the claimed function of the First Sorting Unit in a flow diagram, but does not disclose a step by step algorithm showing how this function is performed. Regarding the alleged support of the cited paragraphs: paragraphs [0058] and [0068] merely mention the First Sorting Unit; paragraphs [0062], [0067], and [0093] merely disclose the claimed function.
Regarding the Second Inner Product Unit (Second IPU), Applicant argues that this element is supported by structure shown in fig. 2 and algorithm, and is further supported in paragraphs [0058], [0062], [0067], [0068], [0093], and Figs. 9 and 11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged structure shown in Fig. 2 merely shows the block representing the Second IPU (IPU type 2) and the elements coupled to it, but it does not show any specific structure disclosing the components this element consists of. Applicant also argues that the algorithm of the Second IPU “may involve a matrix multiplication operation. Its algorithm may work in conjunction with the CIU to facilitate the operation of the CIU”, however this is just a mere allegation of the functions the Second IPU may do; it does not show a step by step algorithm showing how these functions are performed. Regarding the alleged support of the cited paragraphs: paragraphs [0058] and [0064] merely mention the First Sorting Unit; paragraph [0063] merely discloses the claimed function; paragraph [0089] discloses the function of the Cholesky decomposition module and does not mention the Second IPU; Figs. 9 and 11 show the algorithm and flow diagram, respectively, of the overall claimed invention, but it does not disclose any algorithm or structure of the Second IPU.
Regarding the Sparse Solution Estimator (SSE), Applicant argues that this element is supported by structure shown in fig. 2 and algorithm shown in figs. 9 and 11 (e.g., S114), and is further supported in paragraphs [0058], [0060], [0065], [0066], [0067], [0069], [0087], [0089] and Fig. 3.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged structure shown in Fig. 2 merely shows the block representing the Sparse Solution Estimator (SSE) and the elements coupled to it, but it does not show any specific structure disclosing the components this element consists of. The alleged algorithm shown in Fig. 9 shows an overall algorithm of the claimed invention, but it does not show a step by step algorithm corresponding to the function of the SSE. Additionally, Fig. 11 S114 merely recites the claimed function of the SSE in a flow diagram, but does not disclose a step by step algorithm showing how this function is performed. Regarding the alleged support of the cited paragraphs: paragraphs [0058] and [0067] merely mention the First Sorting Unit; paragraphs [0065], [0066], and [0069] merely disclose the claimed function; paragraph [0087] discloses the function of the RCU, and paragraph [0089] discloses the function of the Cholesky decomposition module. Neither of these two paragraphs mentions the SSE; Fig. 3 shows the structure of the Cholesky decomposition module, but it does not show structure for the SSE.
Therefore, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) for not showing corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entre claimed function. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) rejection below.
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 limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“first inner product unit of type 1”, “residual calculation unit”, “first sorting unit”, “second inner product unit”, “Cholesky inversion unit”, “sparse solution estimator”
First recited in claim 1.
The term “unit” has been interpreted as a generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181.I.A. Furthermore, these units are modified by functional language, not modified by structure or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 “first inner product unit of type 1” is included in the subspace pursuit apparatus as in Fig. 2 and coupled to the sorter and merger through an output terminal, the RCU, the sensing matrix memory, and buffer (w), as further disclosed in [0061], [0065], [0066]
The “residual calculation unit” is included in the subspace pursuit apparatus and coupled to the inner product unit of type 1, to the SSE, and to a (y) block as disclosed in Fig. 2, [0060], and is configured to process algorithm shown in Fig. 10 as disclosed in [0087]
The “first sorting unit” is included in the subspace pursuit apparatus as a “sorter & merger” as disclosed in [0058], and is coupled to the first inner product unit of type 1, and to the index buffer, as disclosed in Fig. 2, [0061], [0062]
The “second inner product unit” is included in the subspace pursuit apparatus as in Fig. 2 and coupled to the sensing matrix memory, gram matrix buffer, and to the CIU as disclosed in Fig. 2, [0063], [0064]
The “sparse solution estimator” is included in the subspace pursuit apparatus as in Fig. 2 and coupled to the CIU, the sorter, the RCU, and the buffer (w) as disclosed in Fig. 2, [0065], [0066], [0067]
The “Cholesky inversion unit” is included in the subspace pursuit apparatus as in Fig. 2 and coupled to the Inner product unit of type 2, the Gram Matrix Buffer, and the SSE as disclosed in Fig. 2, [0069], interpreted to include, a C buffer, a D-1 Buffer, and a Buffer Controller, two multiplexers, and a plurality of PEs containing two buffers, two accumulators, and a MAC unit that contains two accumulators, a multiplier, and an adder, as disclosed in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0070] – [0075]
The “Cholesky decomposition module” is included in the Cholesky Inversion Unit as disclosed in [0057], Fig. 3, interpreted to include, a C buffer, a D-1 Buffer, and a Buffer Controller, two multiplexers, and a plurality of PEs (PE1-PEK arranged in parallel and PER) containing two buffers, two accumulators, and a MAC unit that contains two accumulators, a multiplier, and an adder, as disclosed in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0070] – [0075]
The “plurality of operation modules” is included in each PE, and each module is coupled to the Gram matrix buffer as disclosed in [0020], interpreted to include internal buffers to store decomposed matrix from the Cholesky decomposition, and the inverse matrix of the decomposed matrix as disclosed in [0021].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 1-15 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 claim(s) 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “first inner product unit of type 1”, “residual calculation unit”, “first sorting unit”, “second inner product unit”, and “sparse solution estimator”. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 recite the same limitation by reason of dependence. This limitation invokes 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.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 inherit the same deficiency as Claims 1 and 9 by reason of dependence.
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 1-15 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 “first inner product unit of type 1”, “residual calculation unit”, “first sorting unit”, “second inner product unit”, and “sparse solution estimator” as recited in claims 1 and 9 invokes 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 “first inner product unit of type 1”, this unit is merely described in [0061] and [0062] as disclosed in the specification. These Descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification.
As to the “first sorting unit”, this unit is merely described in [0067] and [0068] as disclosed in the specification. These Descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification.
As to the “second inner product unit”, this unit is merely described in [0063] and [0064] as disclosed in the specification. These Descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification.
As to the “sparse solution estimator”, this unit is merely described in [0065] and [0066] as disclosed in the specification. These Descriptions describe functional operations of the unit, and no algorithm could be found in the specification.
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. Claims 2-8 and 10-15 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 and 9 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st and 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 CARLOS H DE LA GARZA whose telephone number is (571)272-0474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/C.H.D./
Carlos H. De La GarzaExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-0474
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182