FINAL OFFICE ACTION
I. Introduction
A) Patent Undergoing Reissue
This office action addresses reissue of U.S. Patent No. 10,797,381 (381 Patent) titled, “DYNAMIC INTERFERENCE REDUCTION FOR ANTENNA BEAM TRACKING SYSTEMS.”
B) Priority and Prior Art Date
The 381 Patent issued on Oct. 6, 2020, and was based upon U.S. Application No. 16/298,491 (“491 Application” or “the base application”), filed Mar. 11, 2019, and claims domestic priority to U.S. Provisional Application 62/640,960 (“960 Provisional”), filed Mar. 9, 2018.
Accordingly, based upon the priority, and to the extent that the 960 Provisional supports the claimed invention, the Examiner finds the effective filing date would be Mar. 9, 2018.
C) Procedural History
On Oct. 5, 2022, the application for reissue of the 381 Patent was filed and assigned U.S. Application No. 17/960,426 (“426 Application” or “instant reissue application”). The 426 Application included: an application data sheet (ADS) (“Oct 2022 ADS”); as showing of ownership (“Oct 2022 Showing of Ownership”); a consent of assignee (“Oct 2022 Consent of Assignee”); an assignee reissue declaration, PTO/AIA /06 (“Oct 2022 Reissue Declaration”); remarks (“Oct 2022 Remarks”), and claims (“Oct 2022 Claims”).
Additionally, an information disclosure statement, was filed Jul. 26, 2023 (“Jul 2023 IDS”).
On April 09, 2025 the Office issued a Non-Final office action (“April 2025 Non-Final”). Based upon a restriction requirement claims 1-27 were constructively elected and claims 28-42 where withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 5-9, 12, and 24-27 were rejected under §103, claims 1-26, were rejected under §112(b), claims 20 and 27 were rejected under §112(a), and claims 1-27 were rejected under §251 for being based upon a defective declaration. Claims 2-4, 10, and 11 were objected to as being allowable but based upon a rejected base claim.
On October 08, 2025 the Office received an Applicant response (“Oct 2025 Response”). Claims 27-42 were cancelled. Claim 1 was amended to include dependent claim 2. Claims 10 and 11 were written in independent form.
D) Submission Considered
All of the above documents submitted in this instant reissue application, have been considered and placed of record in the file.
In the last office action the Examiner noted that the document titled “International Search Report & Written Opinion for PCTIB2019051963” referenced in the Oct 2022 IDS was not considered.
The Examiner has reviewed the Oct 2025 Response and finds that Applicant has not addressed the issue with remarks or by submitting a copy of that document. Accordingly, as a reminder, the Examiner notes here again that if Applicant wants the document considered a copy should be submitted.
II. Comment on Election/Restrictions
The last office action made a restriction requirement constructively electing by original presentation claims 1-27 for prosecution on the merits.
After review of the Applicants Oct 2025 response the Examiner finds that Applicant has cancelled the claim 28-42 that were directed to a distinct invention and has not remarked on the restriction.
III. Comment on Double Patenting
The Examiner previously performed double patenting searches. See April 2025 Examiner Search Strategy. The Examiner did not find any patents or applications covered in scope by the claims of this instant reissue application such that the instant claims would be double patenting. The closets reference that could be found is Pat. No.: US 11,043,736 (“736 Patent”), continued from the ‘381 Patent under reissue. The Examiner finds that while the claims of the 736 Patent are substantially similar to the claims of this instant reissue application, the claims of this instant reissue application are narrower than the claims of the 736 Patent such the claims of the 763 Patent are not covered in scope on an element by element basis or via obvious modifications.
IV. Status of Claims
A) Claims Addressed in this Proceeding.
1. Patent Claims: Claims 1-27 were the patent claims of the 381 Patent(“Patent Claims”).
2. Cancelled Claims: Claims 2, 20, 24, 27, and 28-42 have been cancelled by Applicants Oct 2025 Response. (“Cancelled Claims”).
3. Pending Claims: Claims 1, 3-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are therefore pending (“Pending Claims”).
6. Examined Claims: Claims 1, 3-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are examined in this office action (“Examined Claims”).
B) Claim Status As a Result of This Office Action
1. Claims 1, 3-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are rejected under §251, based upon a defective declaration.
2. Claims 1, 3-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are otherwise deemed allowable over the prior art.
V. Acknowledgements
1. AIA First to Invent: Because the effective filing date of the Instant Reissue Application is after March 16, 2013, this application is being examined under the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions.
2. Patent Term: Based upon a review of the file record the Examiner finds that the Patent has not expired. Additionally the file record indicates that the 3.5 year maintenance fee has posted.
3. Related Reissue Application: The Examiner finds that there are no reissue applications before the Office related to this instant reissue application.
4. Broadening: Based upon review of the file record the Examiner finds that this instant reissue application has been filed as a broadening reissue application. See the error statement of the Oct 2022 Reissue Declaration.
5. Diligence: This instant reissue application has been filed within two years after the issue of the 381 Patent. Accordingly, the diligence requirement for filing of this instant reissue application as a broadening reissue application has been satisfied. Accordingly, Broadening of the claims is allowed. See MPEP §1402, MPEP §1403 and §1412.03.
6. Litigation Review: Based upon a review of statements in the Applicants Remarks and an Examiner independent review of the file itself the Examiner finds that the 381 Patent is not involved in litigation.
7. Concurrent Proceeding Review: Based upon the statements in the Applicant’s remarks, review of the file record, and a review of the USPTO PTAB processing system the Examiner cannot locate any concurrent a post issuance proceeding, such as: Inter Partes review, post grant review, transitional program for covered business method patents, derivation, inter partes and Ex Parte reexaminations, or other post grant proceedings involving the 381 Patent.
VI. Terms Applied
“PHOSITA” - Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
“BRI” - Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard.
“Original Application” – “The prosecution record of the application that issued as the patent for which the reissue application was filed, including the applications in the patent family’s entire prosecution history.” See MPEP §1412.02.
“Original Disclosure” is the substantive disclosure including the abstract, specification, and drawings that were present in the Application for the patent on its effective filing date.
“Applicant” (with upper case “A”) refers to the Applicant is this reissue application.
“applicant” (with lower case “a”) refers to applicants generally.
“patent owner” (lower case) refers to patent owners generally and not the Applicant in this reissue application.
“Examiner” (with upper case “E”) refers to the Examiner is this reissue application.
“examiner” (with lower case “e”) refers to examiners generally, e.g. the examiner in during the prosecution of the base application, or other examiners.
VII. Statutes Applied In This Action
35 USC § 251
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent. Specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
VIII. Objection to the Declaration
A) Objection to the Declaration
Maintained with Modification
The Examiner finds that the Reissue Declaration, i.e., the Oct 2022 Reissue Declaration, is objected as not complying with the requirements set forth in 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP §§ 1414, 1444.
The reissue oath/declaration is defective because it fails to correctly identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. The following is a more detailed explanation of the issues:
1. The Examiner has reviewed the Oct 2022 Reissue Declaration and finds that the error statement does indicate broadening of claim 18, but does not specify claim the language where the error lies or specify a difference in the newly filed claims. Accordingly the error statement does not comply with 37 CFR 1.175 as interpreted in MPEP §1414.
2. For support the Examiner notes that MPEP §1414 and 37 CFR 1.175 recites at least the following requirements for the declaration:
(a) At least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application must be set forth in the oath/declaration. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. See MPEP §1414(II) (B);
(b) Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim language wherein the error lies MPEP §1414(II) (C);
(c) If a new claim(s) is presented, its difference from the original claims must be pointed out. MPEP §1414(II) (C) ¶2;
(d) For a reissue application filed on or after September 16, 2012, if the same error corrected in a parent reissue is also being corrected in the continuation reissue, but the error is being corrected in a different way, a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 is no longer needed; however, a statement is needed to explain compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(e) (2). See MPEP 1414 II (D).
3. Because the error statement in the Oct 2022 Reissue Declaration does not identify specific claim language wherein the error lies as required by the 37 CFR 1.175 as interpreted under MPEP §1414, the Oct 2022 Reissue Declaration is objected to because it fails to correctly identify at least one error.
B) Sample Error Statement
As suggested in the last office action, since Applicant has chosen to further prosecute this instant reissue application and pursue broadening of claim 18, the error statement must identify a claim to be broadened, and the claim language within which the error lies, and specify a difference in the newly filed or amended claims. See MPEP for example MPEP §1414 II. stating:
For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
- MPEP § 1414 II, ¶5.
Accordingly, Applicant in the next response should filed a new declaration correcting the error statement. Should the Applicant choose to pursue broadening of claims 1-27, the Examiner suggests an error statement similar to the following:
We believe U.S. Patent No. 10,797,381 to be wholly or partially inoperative or invalid by claiming less than we had the right to claim in the patent. Patentee thus seeks to broaden claim 18. Independent claim 13, from which claim 18 depends, is amended, and is broader because it does not include the limitation of “acquires and,” thereby broadening claim 13, and thus claim 18.
The Examiner notes that above is only an example. Applicant is free to develop an error statement of their own, however, is reminded to review any submitted Reissue declaration and the error statement for full compliance with 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP §§ 1414, 1444.
IX. Objection to the Specification
(Withdrawn)
The objection to the specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter “artificial intelligence AI,” “machine learning,” and “deep learning.” in claim 20 is withdrawn.
The Oct 2025 Response cancels claim 20. Accordingly, the objection is moot and therefore withdrawn.
X. Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §251
Claims 1, 3-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. §251. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect in the declarations is set forth in the discussion above.
XI. Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
A) Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception, albeit optional, to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard occurs when there is lexicographic definition in the specification.
After a careful review of the original specification, unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner cannot locate any other lexicographic definitions, express or implied, in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner cannot locate any lexicographic definitions in the original specification with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision the Examiner concludes that for terms other than those noted directly above the Patent Owner is not their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
B) 'Sources' for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Applicant, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how he is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language. 1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
1. Antenna Beam: “the major lobe of the radiation pattern of an antenna.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
2. Array Antenna: “An antenna comprised of a number of identical radiating elements in a regular arrangement and excited to obtain a prescribed pattern.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
3. Artificial Intelligence: “The study of designing computer systems exhibiting the characteristics associated with intelligence in human behavior including understanding language, learning, reasoning from incomplete or uncertain information, and solving problems.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
4. Butler Matrix: A device used to control antenna arrays to form beams by driving particular input ports of the Butler Matrix causing the device to drive particular antenna elements of the antenna array to form one or more beams. See Fay U.S. Pat. No. 5,128,687, at C1:L30-52, describing a Butler Matrix as a device to drive an antenna array to form beams by selection of particular input ports of the Butler Matrix. See Brothers, JR. et al. Pub. No.: US 2003/0092379 at Par [0033] describing a Butler Matrix as a device used to control antenna arrays to form beams. And See Angeletti Pub. No.: US 2011/0102263 at Par [0014] to [0016] referring to U.S. Pat No. 3,255,450 by Butler, describing a Butler Matrix as a device to control and antenna array to form beams by driving certain inputs of the matrix to control the antenna array element to form the beams.
5. Circuit: “The physical connection (or path) of channels, conductors and equipment between two given points through which an electric current may be established. Includes both sending and receiving capabilities. A circuit can also be a network of circuit elements, such as resistors, inductors, capacitors, semiconductors, etc., that performs a specific function. A circuit can also be a closed path through which current can flow” Newton’s Telecom Dictionary. 14th Expanded Edition, Telecom Books, October 1998.
6. Configuration “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to a hardware configuration or software configuration.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
7. Configured: “to set up for operation esp. in a particular way.” Merriam - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, Merriam-Webster Inc., 1994.
8. Controller: “A device that controls the operation of another device by relaying information to that device, the controller potentially a processor or computer.” Newton’s Telecom Dictionary. 14th Expanded Edition, Telecom Books, October 1998.
9. Device: “A hardware unit capable of performing some specific function.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
10. Processor: “The part of a computer system that operates on data – called also a central processing unit.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.2
11. Processing: “Manipulation of data within a computer system. Processing is the vital step between receiving data (input) and producing results (output) – the task for which computers are designed” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.
D) 35 U.S.C. §112(f)
A second exception is when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See MPEP § 2181 et seq. To invoke § 112(f), a claimed phrase must meet the three prong analysis (“3 Prong Analysis”) as set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I).
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA § 112(f):
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 Examiner has evaluated the claims and finds the following:
I) The following phrases, from claims 1, 10, 11, and 13, will be first identified and then analyzed using the MPEP’s 3 Prong Analysis to determine if the claimed phrases invoke § 112(f). If a phrase invokes § 112(f), the corresponding structure will also be determined.
See MPEP §2181 and Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In the following analysis of the Functional Phrases the Examiner notes:
In assessing whether the claim limitation is in means-plus-function format, we do not merely consider the introductory phrase (e.g., ‘mechanical control assembly’) in isolation, but look to the entire passage including functions performed by the introductory phrase. [Emphasis added.]
- MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
[a] claim limitation that does not use the term “means” or “step” will trigger the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1310, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1886–87 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Even in the face of this presumption, the examiner should nonetheless consider whether the presumption is overcome. The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term “means” is overcome when “the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.'“ Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, 115 USPQ2d at 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880, 56 USPQ2d 1836, 1838 (Fed. Cir. 2000)…. [Emphasis added.]
- MPEP § 2181 I.
Functional Phrase #1 (FP#1) (Claim 1): “multiple beam antenna system is configured to: form a first plurality of antenna beams that continually and dynamically acquires and tracks a desired signal having a source or node location that varies with time, said desired signal having a desired beam channel or path with multiple undesired signals interfering with the desired beam channel or path from one or more undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) at other location(s) that varies with time with respect to the source or node location; form a second plurality of antenna beams that each continually seeks, acquires, and tracks the multiple undesired signals from the other location(s) that varies with time,” as in claim 1, lines 5-15.
Function of Functional Phrase #1 (FP#1) (Claim 1): “form a first plurality of antenna beams that continually and dynamically acquires and tracks a desired signal having a source or node location that varies with time, said desired signal having a desired beam channel or path with multiple undesired signals interfering with the desired beam channel or path from one or more undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) at other location(s) that varies with time with respect to the source or node location; form a second plurality of antenna beams that each continually seeks, acquires, and tracks the multiple undesired signals from the other location(s) that varies with time.”
Functional Phrase #2 (FP#2) (Claim 1): “multiple beam antenna system is configured to . . . processes the multiple undesired signals from those undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) to continually reduce or cancel changing interference in the desired beam channel or path by subtracting or cancelling the multiple undesired signals from the desired signal,” as in claim 1 line 5, and lines 16-19.
Function of Functional Phrase #2 (FP#2) (Claim 1): “processes the multiple undesired signals from those undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) to continually reduce or cancel changing interference in the desired beam channel or path by subtracting or cancelling the multiple undesired signals from the desired signal.”
Functional Phrase #3 (FP#3) (Claim 10): “multiple beam antenna system is configured to: form a first antenna beam that continually and dynamically acquires and tracks a desired signal having a source or node location that varies with time, said desired signal having a desired beam channel or path with one or more undesired signals interfering with the desired beam channel or path from one or more undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) at other location(s) that varies with time with respect to the source or node location; form a second antenna beam that each continually seeks, acquires, and tracks the one or more undesired signals from the other location(s) that varies with time,” as in claim 10 lines 5-12.
Function of Functional Phrase #3 (FP#3) (Claim 10): “form a first antenna beam that continually and dynamically acquires and tracks a desired signal having a source or node location that varies with time, said desired signal having a desired beam channel or path with one or more undesired signals interfering with the desired beam channel or path from one or more undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) at other location(s) that varies with time with respect to the source or node location; form a second antenna beam that each continually seeks, acquires, and tracks the one or more undesired signals from the other location(s) that varies with time.”
Functional Phrase #4 (FP#4) (Claim 10): “multiple beam antenna system is configured to: . . . processes the one or more undesired signals from those undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) to continually reduce or cancel changing interference in the desired beam channel or path by subtracting or cancelling the one or more undesired signals from the desired signal,” as in claim 10 line 5, and lines 13-16.”
Function of Functional Phrase #4 (FP#4) (Claim 10): “processes the one or more undesired signals from those undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) to continually reduce or cancel changing interference in the desired beam channel or path by subtracting or cancelling the one or more undesired signals from the desired signal,” as in claim 10 lines 13-16.”
Functional Phrase #5 (FP#5) (Claim 10): “controller controlling said amplitude attenuator and/or said phase shifter to adjust an amplitude and/or phase of the one or more undesired interfering signal to reduce or cancel the interference in the desired beam channel or path,” as in claim 10 lines 23-25.
Function of Functional Phrase #5 (FP#5) (Claim 10): “controlling said amplitude attenuator and/or said phase shifter to adjust an amplitude and/or phase of the one or more undesired interfering signal to reduce or cancel the interference in the desired beam channel or path,” as in claim 10 lines 23-25.
Functional Phrase #6 (FP#6) (Claim 11): “multiple beam antenna system is configured to: form a first antenna beam that continually and dynamically acquires and tracks a desired signal having a source or node location that varies with time, said desired signal having a desired beam channel or path with one or more undesired signals interfering with the desired beam channel or path from one or more undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) at other location(s) that varies with time with respect to the source or node location; form a second antenna beam that each continually seeks, acquires, and tracks the one or more undesired signals from the other location(s) that varies with time; . . . and wherein multiple beams are formed by subdividing an aperture for the second antenna beam into two or more searching, tracking, or interference mitigation beams while the first antenna beam remains in use for communication with a target signal source or node,” as in claim 11 lines 5-12, and 17-19.
Function of Functional Phrase #6 (FP#6) (Claim 11): “form a first antenna beam that continually and dynamically acquires and tracks a desired signal having a source or node location that varies with time, said desired signal having a desired beam channel or path with one or more undesired signals interfering with the desired beam channel or path from one or more undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) at other location(s) that varies with time with respect to the source or node location; form a second antenna beam that each continually seeks, acquires, and tracks the one or more undesired signals from the other location(s) that varies with time; . . . and wherein multiple beams are formed by subdividing an aperture for the second antenna beam into two or more searching, tracking, or interference mitigation beams while the first antenna beam remains in use for communication with a target signal source or node.”
Functional Phrase #7 (FP#7) (Claim 11): “multiple beam antenna system is configured to: . . . processes the one or more undesired signals from those undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) to continually reduce or cancel changing interference in the desired beam channel or path by subtracting or cancelling the one or more undesired signals from the desired signal,” as in claim 11 lines 5, and lines 13-16.
Function of Functional Phrase #7 (FP#7) (Claim 11): “processes the one or more undesired signals from those undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) to continually reduce or cancel changing interference in the desired beam channel or path by subtracting or cancelling the one or more undesired signals from the desired signal.”
Functional Phrase #8 (FP#8)(Claim 13): “multiple beam antenna system is configured to: form a first antenna beam that continually and dynamically tracks a desired signal source or node; form a second antenna beam that continually scans across nearby angles to dynamically locate and quantify potential interference sources; form a third antenna beam that continually tracks interference from an interference source that was located by the second antenna beam,” as in claim 13 lines 5-13.
Function of Functional Phrase #8 (FP#8)(Claim 13): “form a first antenna beam that continually and dynamically tracks a desired signal source or node; form a second antenna beam that continually scans across nearby angles to dynamically locate and quantify potential interference sources; form a third antenna beam that continually tracks interference from an interference source that was located by the second antenna beam.”
Functional Phrase #9 (FP#9)(Claim 13): “multiple beam antenna system is configured to: . . . processes interfering signals to subtract or cancel the interference from a desired signal of the desired signal source or node, wherein a location of the desired signal source or node varies with time with respect to a location of the interference source,” as in claim 13 lines 14-17.
Function of Functional Phrase #9 (FP#9)(Claim 13): “processes interfering signals to subtract or cancel the interference from a desired signal of the desired signal source or node, wherein a location of the desired signal source or node varies with time with respect to a location of the interference source.”
a) 3-Prong Analysis Prong (A):
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (A) requires:
(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 ....
- MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (A).
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that Functional Phrases #1 to #4 do not use the phrase “means for.” The issue arising under Prong (A) then becomes whether or not the claimed “multiple beam antenna system,” in FP#1, FP#2, FP#3, and FP#4, is a generic placeholders for the phrase ‘means for,’ i.e., being applied as a generic means for performing the function. See MPEP 2181 I. A.
To determine the agent terms are structures capable of performing the claimed functions the Examiner notes the following.
The Examiner has reviewed the specification and finds insufficient evidence that the “multiple beam antenna system,” and the “controller,” are described as structures known to perform the claimed functions. For example, except for possibly the claims, the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the specification uses the complete phrase “multiple beam antenna system.” The best the Examiner can finds is that the specification uses the term “multi-beam antenna,” (C1:L48-52), and states a “controller,” (C12:L55-67) is a standard computer processor. However, the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the specification states that a “multiple beam antenna system” or a “controller,” are known structure capable of performing the claimed functions, i.e. for example, the Functions of FP#1 to FP#9, outlined above. Additionally, the specification of the 381 Patent C5:L28-56, C6:L3-13, C6:L57-67, C12:L55-67,, Figure 2b shows a processor 165, and Figure 3 shows a controller 159, are apparently the devices, circuits, controllers, or intelligence, somehow causing the functions to be realized. However, the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that the specification describes this system of devices, as a particular system known in the art to have the functions of FP#1 to FP#9, reprinted above. Accordingly, from the specification a PHOSITA could at most conclude at most that the term “multiple beam antenna system,” and “controller,” are not a terms that that represents a structure that (alone), could perform the entire claim function. Other structural elements are needed. For example programing with a particular circuit in conjunction with the programming.
Looking at the prior art general and technical dictionaries, See section above, entitled “Sources for the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ‘BRI’, above the Examiner finds insufficient evidence that a “multiple beam antenna system,” and “controller,” are known structures having the claimed functions. The best the Examiner can tell from the general and technical dictionaries is that the term “multiple beam antenna system” is a compound word in itself, that represents a function. For Example an antenna that can form multiple beams. And a controller is a standard processor. However, looking at the claimed functions i.e. Function of FP#1 to F#9, outlined above, and the meaning of an antenna system or beam, and controller, the Examiner finds that a PHOSITA would understand that a standard antenna that can form multiple beams (alone) or a controller (alone), cannot perform the entire claim functions. Other structural elements are needed.
Looking at the prior art references, e.g. Pan et al. Pub. No. US 2020/0037297, at Par [0045] the best the Examiner can tell is that the devices for controlling beams are standard. For example a multi beam antenna is known. And these devices use processors or controllers. However, such an antenna as described by Pan, would require special programming taught as the invention of Pan to perform the interference reduction techniques. Accordingly, from the prior art references a PHOSITA would conclude that the antenna that can form multiple beams, or a controller (alone), cannot perform the entire claim function. Other structural elements are needed.
Accordingly the Examiner concludes that the phrase “multiple beam antenna system,” is being used as a generic term for a structure to perform the function, and therefore a place holders for the phrase “means for” performing the recited function.
Because the phrase “multiple beam antenna system.” above, is being used as a generic terms for a structure performing the function, and therefore a place holders for the phrase “means for” performing the recited function, the Examiner concludes that FP#1 to FP#9 above meet invocation Prong (A).
b) 3-Prong Analysis Prong (B):
In accordance with the MPEP prong (B) requires:
(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” ....
- MPEP § 2181 I. — Prong (B).
Based upon a review of the claims, the Examiner finds that the functions associated with FP#1-FP#9 are the functions recited above, as the Function of FP#1 to FP#9.
Because FP#1 to FP#9, include the functions recited above, , the Examiner concludes that FP#1 to FP #9 meet invocation Prong (B).
c) 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C)
In accordance with the MPEP, Prong (C) requires:
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
- MPEP § 2181 (I) — Prong (C)
Based upon a review of the entire FP#1 to FP #9, the Examiner finds that FP#1 and FP#9, do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function that is set forth in those functional phrases.
Because FP#1 to FP#9 do not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire claimed function, the Examiner concludes that FP#1 to FP#9 meet invocation Prong (C).
Because FP#1 to FP#9 meet the 3 Prong Analysis as set forth in MPEP §2181 I., the Examiner concludes that the phrases invoke § 112(f).
d) Corresponding Structure
(1) For FP#1, and FP#3 (As in claim 1, and claim 10, respectively.): Based upon review of the specification the Examiner finds the corresponding structure for FP#1 and FP#3 is a beam forming network, e.g. Figure 5, used for multiple beams, with controller 150, including a processor programed to perform the algorithm in steps 202, 204, Figure 4, including underlying steps described in the specification of the 381 Patent. (See 381, Patent at C4:L38-64, C5:L15-43, C6:L3-28, C8:L12-60, C9:L3-19,).
(2) For FP#2, FP#4, FP#5, FP#7, and FP#9 (Claim 10): Based upon review of the original disclosure, the Examiner finds that the corresponding structure for FP#3 is the circuit shown in Figure 3, and extended to Figure 5, for multiple beams. The circuit having a processor (controller 159), variable attenuator, phase shifter, amplifier, filter, amplifier, coupled between antennas, e.g. antennas 112 and 113, by couplers 152 and 157 (See 381 Patent at C6:L3-40). The circuit including a detector 158 (Id.). The circuit coupled between the antenna arrays to insert a modified version of the interfering signals into the desired signal path for cancellation of the interference signal (381 Patent at C6:L3-40). The circuit performing the algorithm of: (1) When antenna 112 receives a desired signal and an undesired interfering signal; (1) the processor receiving feedback from detector 158 on the interfering signal in the desired signal path (381 Patent C6:L57-67, C7:L1-5); (2) the processor controlling attenuator 153, phase shifter 154, and amplifier 155, to adjust the amplitude, phase, of the copy of the interfering signal received in antenna 113 so as when the signal is coupled into the desired signal path at coupler 152, the signal cancels the interfering signal received in the path at antenna 112 (381 Patent 6:L28-67, C7:L1-5).
(3) For FP#6 and FP#8, (As in claim 11, and 13, Respectively): Based upon review of the specification the Examiner finds the corresponding structure for FP#6 is a beam forming network, e.g. Figure 5, used for multiple beams, with controller 150, including a processor programed to perform the described in the 381 Patent specification C9:L20-67, with functions describing Figure 7. (See 381, C9:L20-67, C10:L1-21, C10:L42-67).
II) Dependent Claims
The Examiner has reviewed dependent claims 3-9, 12, 14-19, 21-23, 25, and 26 and finds these claims do not themselves invoke 112(f) or cause the functional phrases within the claims they depend from to be governed by 112(f). accordingly, these claims are interpreted base upon there dependency and the corresponding structures outlined above.
E) Computer Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations
For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, a general purpose computer is only sufficient as the corresponding structure for performing a general computing function. When there is a specific function to be performed, it is required that an algorithm for performing the function be disclosed, and the corresponding structure becomes a general purpose computer transformed into a special purpose computer by programming the computer to perform the disclosed algorithm. The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
As noted in the MPEP:
An algorithm is defined, for example, as “a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. [Citations and select quotations omitted.]
- MPEP 2181 II B.
F) Conclusion Claim Interpretation
Accordingly, because of the Examiners’ findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and for functional phrases that invoke §112(f) those phrases will be interpreted based upon the corresponding structure, outline above.
In addition any claim terms and phrases that do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01(I).
It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP 2111.01(II).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
XII. Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(a)
(Withdrawn)
A) Enablement
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in the last office action for lack of enablement is withdrawn. Claim 20 has been cancelled by Applicants Oct 2025 Response. Accordingly the rejection is no longer necessary and is withdrawn.
B) Written Description
The rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for lacking of support in the written description is withdrawn. Claim 27 has been cancelled by Applicants Oct 2025 Response. Accordingly the rejection is no longer necessary and is withdrawn.
XIII. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
(Withdrawn)
The rejection of the under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the last office action, as being indefinite because the claim structure cannot be determined due to failure to clearly link and associated a corresponding structure, is withdrawn.
Applicants Oct 2025 Response amends the claims such that the Examiner can now determine the structures that realize the functions, i.e. the corresponding structures, for the functional phrases. As such the claims are now definite and the rejection is withdrawn.
XIV. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-19, 21-23, and 25-26 are allowable over the prior art of record. The prior art of record fails to teach the corresponding structures for FP#2, in claim 1, FP#4, and FP#5, in claim 10, FP#7, in claim 11, and to FP#9 in claim 13.
Musselman (Pub. No.: US 2013/0035052) and Richards et. al. (Pat. No.: US 6,151,496), where exemplary references applied in the last office action.
Musselman discloses a multiple beam antenna system (Figure 1 reprinted below) (see Musselman at Par [0029] [0036], where at Par [0029] antenna array 10 is described and at Par [0036] two beams are discussed being formed. Thus a multibeam antenna system.), comprising: an interference reduction device configured to form a first antenna beam that continually and dynamically acquires and tracks a desired signal (See Musselman at Par [0027] [0028] [0036] [0037] discussing the antenna array is connected to a controller that forms two beams, one for the received satellite signal desired signal and one for the interfering signal. Thus at least a tracks a desired signal.).
PNG
media_image1.png
208
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- Musselman, Figure 1
Richards taught a satellite system (Richards, C1:L113-26, C2:L53-67, discussing a satellite receiver with array antennas forming beams) that continually and dynamically acquires and tracks a desired signal having a source or node location that varies with time (See Richards, Figure 3, C1:L13-27, C2:L52-67, 9C4:L1-40, discussing tracking non-geostationary satellites by forming beams that track the satellites.).
Thus Musselman as modified by Richards disclose said desired signal having a desired beam channel or path with one or more undesired signals interfering with the desired beam from one or more undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) at other location(s) that varies with time with respect to the source or node location (See Musselman at Par [0027] [0028] discussing that the desired signal has an interfering, or undesired signal source that moves over time.); and said interference reduction device further configured to form one or more second antenna beam(s) that each continually seeks, acquires, and tracks the one or more undesired signal(s) from the other location(s) that varies with time (See Musselman at Par [0026] to [0038], discussing that controller forms a second beam that tracks an interference source.) and processes the one or more undesired signals from those undesired interfering source(s) or node(s) to continually reduce or cancel the changing interference in the desired beam channel or path by subtracting or cancelling the one or more undesired signals from the desired signal (See Musselman at Par [0026] to [0038], discussing that controller forms a second beam that tracks an interference source and modifies the first beam to have a Null at the location of the interfering source. Thus subtracting the interfering source from the desired source.).
Accordingly, Musselman as modified by Richards had teachings substantially similar to independent claims, 1, 10, 11, and 13, and the corresponding structures for FP#1, FP#3, FP#6, and FP#8. Additionally, Musselman as modified by Richards do show cancelling the interfering signal from the desired signal where Musselman at Par [0026] to [0038], discussed that controller forms a second beam that tracks an interference source and modifies the first beam to have a Null at the location of the interfering source.
However, Musselman as modified by Richards does not teach show cancelling the interfering signal as in the circuit of FP#2, in claim 1, FP#4, and FP#5, in claim 10, FP#7, in claim 11, and to FP#9 in claim 13. For example a circuit having a processor/controller, variable attenuator, phase shifter, amplifier, filter, amplifier, coupled between antennas, e.g. and such as an antenna array 110, Figure 5 of the 381 Patent. As noted therein the circuit includes couplers with a detector, and the circuit coupled between the antenna arrays via the couplers to insert a modified version of the interfering signals into the desired signal path for cancellation of the interference signal. The modified version of the interfering signal is performed via the algorithm receiving a desired signal and an undesired interfering signal; receiving feedback from the detector on the interfering signal and controlling an attenuator, phase shifter, and amplifier, to adjust the amplitude, phase, of the copy of the interfering signal so as when the signal is coupled into the desired signal path at the coupler 152, the signal cancels the interfering signal received in the path.
Accordingly, because independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 at least require the corresponding structure for FP#2, in claim 1, FP#4, and FP#5, in claim 10, FP#7, in claim 11, and to FP#9 in claim 13, independent claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 are allowed over the prior art.
Claims 3-9, 12, 14-19, 21-23, 25, and 26 are allowed based upon dependency on their respective independent claims.
XV. Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-19, 21-23, 25, and 26 are rejected under §251. Claims 1, 3-19, 21-23, 25, and 26 are otherwise deemed allowable over the prior art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Applicant is reminded of the obligation to apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was involved, such as interferences or trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reissues, reexaminations, or litigations and the results of such proceedings.
In accordance