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 .
Response to Arguments
Drawing Objections
Applicant has amended the drawings at issue and the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant has amended the claims at issue and the previous objections have therefore been withdrawn, however new objections have been introduced.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s amendments of the claims are not sufficient to withdraw the interpretation of “filter multiplexing unit” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The newly added language “the filter multiplexing units are each configured to perform data latching, timing sequence control, and multiply-accumulate operation on data and coefficients, and share a parameter configuration module” merely recites additional functions of “data latching, timing sequence control, and multiply-accumulate operation” for the filter multiplexing units, and are thus still in a means plus function form, and “share a parameter configuration module” is merely reciting coupling and is not a structure of the filter multiplexing units.
Furthermore, newly added “parameter configuration module” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as the claim language “configuring, according to the preset filtering order, a filtering order for each used filter multiplexing unit through the parameter configuration module” is a means plus function limitation, wherein the parameter configuration module performs the function of configuring a filtering order.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
In regards to the insufficient antecedent basis and “multi-add operation” indefiniteness rejections, Applicant has amended the claims at issue and the previous rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
In regards to claim rejections related to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The additional language “the filter multiplexing units are each configured to perform data latching, timing sequence control, and multiply-accumulate operation on data and coefficients, and share a parameter configuration module” does not add sufficient structures and/or acts for performing the function of “filter multiplexing unit”. The functions of “data latching, timing sequence control, and multiply-accumulate operation” seem to be merely restated in the specification and is silent to steps for performing each function (Applicant’s paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the amendments allow FIR filter to be multi-mode FIR filter, instead of multiple single-mode filters in parallel. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reasons for disagreement are further discussed below in the responses to all assertions.
Applicant asserts the prior art fails to teach sharing a parameter configuration module by a plurality of filter multiplexing units and select used filter multiplexing units and select used filter multiplexing units to achieve a multi-mode FIR filter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. D’Souza Fig. 6 elements 621 and 335 are control logic that are coupled to, and selects, each single-rate FIR filter (col 8 lines 15-33).
Applicant asserts D’Souza fails to teach that a plurality of single rate FIR filters 630 share a parameter configuration module and the filtering order of each used single rate FIR filters are configured through the parameter configuration module. Examiner respectfully disagrees. D’Souza Fig. 6 elements 621 and 335 configures each single-rate FIR filter for coefficients and computation time (col 8 lines 15-33).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 14, 15 recites the filter multiplexing units performing data latching; however, the specification is silent to data latching, and only discloses data beating. Appropriate correction is required.
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: filter multiplexing unit and parameter configuration module in claims 1, 14, 15.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 14, 15’s limitation filter multiplexing unit invokes 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 11, sixth paragraph. No corresponding structure for the filter multiplexing unit that perform filtering as recited in the claim is found in the specification. The functions recited in the claim are merely restated in paragraphs [0034]-[0035] and do not disclose steps to performing the functions. However, the written description fails to provide an adequate description of the structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed functions of these limitations.
Claim 1, 14, 15’s limitation parameter configuration module invokes 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 11, sixth paragraph. No corresponding structure for the filter multiplexing unit that perform filtering as recited in the claim is found in the specification. The function recited in the claims is merely restated in paragraph [0034] and does not disclose steps to performing the functions. However, the written description fails to provide an adequate description of the structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed functions of these limitations.
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, 14, 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 “filter multiplexing unit” and “parameter configuration module” 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. No corresponding structure, or plurality of acts, for the filter multiplexing unit that performs filtering, data latching, timing sequence control, and multiply-accumulate as recited in the claim is found in the specification. No corresponding structure, or plurality of acts, for the parameter configuration module that performs configuring a filtering order as recited in the claim is 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-3, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Souza et al. (US 8589461 B1, hereinafter “D’Souza”).
As per claim 1, D’Souza teaches A filtering method based on a finite impulse response (FIR) filter, comprising: acquiring a preset filtering order and a preset down-sampling multiple (D’Souza: Fig. 6 element 335; col 10 lines 10-11 wherein P corresponds to the filtering order and N corresponds to the down-sampling multiple);
selecting, according to the preset down-sampling multiple, a corresponding number of filter multiplexing units, and using each of the selected filter multiplexing units as a used filter multiplexing unit, wherein the FIR filter comprises a plurality of filter multiplexing units (D’Souza: col 5 lines 42-45), the filter multiplexing units are each configured to perform data latching, timing sequence control, and multiply accumulate operation on data and coefficients, and share a parameter configuration module (D’Souza: Fig. 6 elements 621, 335; col 8 lines 15-33);
configuring, according to the preset filtering order, a filtering order for each used filter multiplexing unit (D’Souza: col 7 lines 15-17; wherein P is used to determine the filter coefficients), through the parameter configuration module (D’Souza: Fig. 6 elements 621, 335; col 8 lines 15-33);
filtering, according to the preset down-sampling multiple, input data allocated to each used filter multiplexing unit through the each used filter multiplexing unit configured with the respective filtering order, to obtain unit filtered data outputted by the each used filter multiplexing unit (D’Souza: Fig. 6 elements 630; col 8 lines 47-50);
and merging the unit filtered data respectively outputted by the corresponding number of used filter multiplexing units and outputting merged unit filtered data (D’Souza: Fig. 6 elements 640; col 8 lines 64-66).
As per claim 2, D’Souza further teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the selecting, according to the preset down-sampling multiple, a corresponding number of filter multiplexing units comprises: in a case where the preset down-sampling multiple is an integer, selecting a number of filter multiplexing units same as the preset down-sampling multiple (D’Souza: col 9 lines 6-18).
As per claim 3, D’Souza further teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the filtering, according to the preset down-sampling multiple, input data allocated to each used filter multiplexing unit through the each used filter multiplexing unit configured with the respective filtering order, to obtain unit filtered data outputted by the each used filter multiplexing unit, comprises: performing multiply-accumulate operation on the input data and respective preset filtering coefficients by the each used filter multiplexing unit configured with the respective filtering order to obtain the unit filtered data, wherein the multiply-accumulate operation is performed in a number of clock cycles same as the preset down-sampling multiple (D’Souza: col 8 lines 39-44; col 8 lines 29-33).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed to a device that implements the same or similar features as the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 15, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that implements the same or similar features as the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claims 16-17, the claim is directed to a device that implements the same or similar features as the method of claims 2-3, respectively, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-8, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Souza in view of Dong et al. (US 8289195 B1, hereinafter “Dong”).
As per claim 4, D’Souza further teaches The method according to claim 1.
However, while D’Souza discloses a filtering device that supports adjustable factors N and P, D’Souza does not explicitly disclose they can be a fraction. Thus, D’Souza does not teach wherein the selecting, according to the preset down-sampling multiple, a corresponding number of filter multiplexing units comprises: in a case where the preset down-sampling multiple is a fraction, selecting a number of filter multiplexing units same as a numerator of the preset down-sampling multiple.
Dong teaches wherein the selecting, according to the preset down-sampling multiple, a corresponding number of filter multiplexing units comprises: in a case where the preset down-sampling multiple is a fraction, selecting a number of filter multiplexing units same as a numerator of the preset down-sampling multiple (Dong: col 1 lines 36-40; col 4 lines 31-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the device 50 of D’Souza with the fractional rate processing taught in Dong. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose configurable filter circuits, and the combination renders an improved system/method that allows for a more robust processing technique that allows for more useful applications within the field (being able to resample to more values).
As per claim 5, D’Souza/Dong further teaches The method according to claim 4, wherein the filtering, according to the preset down-sampling multiple, input data allocated to each used filter multiplexing unit through the each used filter multiplexing unit configured with the respective filtering order, to obtain unit filtered data outputted by the each used filter multiplexing unit, comprises: performing multiply-accumulate operation on the input data and respective preset filtering coefficients by the each used filter multiplexing unit configured with the respective filtering order to obtain the unit filtered data, wherein the multiply-accumulate operation is performed by using a number of clock cycles same as the numerator of the preset down-sampling multiple (D’Souza: col 9 lines 6-18) and within a number of clock cycles same as a denominator of the preset down-sampling multiple (Dong: col 6 lines 10-13).
As per claim 6, D’Souza further teaches The method according to claim 1 wherein before the acquiring a preset filtering order and a preset down-sampling multiple, the method further comprises: configuring a number of the plurality of filter multiplexing units in the FIR filter according to at least two preset down-sampling multiples supported by the FIR filter, wherein each of the at least two preset down-sampling multiples is one of an integer (D’Souza: col 9 lines 10-18).
However, while D’Souza discloses a filtering device that supports adjustable factors N and P, D’Souza does not explicitly disclose they can be a fraction.
Dong teaches wherein each of the at least two preset down-sampling multiples is one of a fraction (Dong: col 1 lines 19-22).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the device 50 of D’Souza with the fractional rate processing taught in Dong for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 4.
As per claim 7, D’Souza/Dong further teaches The method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring a number of the plurality of filter multiplexing units in the FIR filter according to at least two preset down- sampling multiples supported by the FIR filter comprises: in a case where the at least two preset down-sampling multiples supported by the FIR filter are all integers, configuring the number of the filter multiplexing units according to a largest preset down-sampling multiple among the at least two preset down-sampling multiples (D’Souza: col 9 lines 10-18);
and in a case where the at least two preset down-sampling multiples supported by the FIR filter comprise a fraction, configuring the number of the filter multiplexing units according to a denominator of the preset down-sampling multiple being of a fraction and the preset down- sampling multiple being of an integer in the at least two preset down-sampling multiples (Dong: col 6 lines 2-6).
As per claim 8, D’Souza/Dong further teaches The method according to claim 6, wherein the configuring a unit maximum order supported by each of the plurality of filter multiplexing units according to a maximum order supported by the FIR filter and the number of the plurality of filter multiplexing units, comprises: configuring the unit maximum order to be greater than or equal to a quotient of the maximum order supported by the FIR filter divided by the number of the filter multiplexing units (D’Souza: col 9 lines 10-18).
As per claims 18-22, the claim is directed to a device that implements the same or similar features as the method of claims 4-8, respectively, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
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 PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, Andrew T 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.
/P.N.L./
Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights