DETAILED ACTION
The amendments to the claims and the remarks filed 6/29/2026 have been received.
No amendments to the Specification were received.
SPECIFICATION
The amendment filed 6/29/2026 did not contain amendments to the Specification nor did it address the objections to the specification in the non-final rejection dated 3/27/2026, which are repeated here:
The amendment filed 1/2/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 (a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The amendment to [0157], [0169], [0187], and [0195] changes “virtual data streams” to “spatial ports and virtual ports” which is different from and broader than the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not define or treat these terms as equivalents. For instance, [0061] states: “The component 198 may also be configured to receive a signal from a repeater comprising data precoded based on a space-frequency precoding scheme across a plurality of spatial ports and virtual ports and to derive separate virtual data streams by applying space-frequency MMSE combining of the received signal across multiple reception ports.”
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation 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
Claims 1-11 and 31-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
Discussion of the “effective channel” and “per-hop” limitations
Independent claim 1 as amended recites “wherein the space-frequency precoding scheme is based on an effective channel combining a first per-hop channel over the first frequency and a second per-hop channel over the second frequency.” On page 10 of their Remarks Applicant asserts that paragraphs [0108]-[0l12] of the specification support this amendment. The Examiner disagrees and finds that the claim language is far broader than what is disclosed. As stated in MPEP 2161.01:
The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed… Applicants who present broad claim language must ensure the claims are fully enabled. Specifically, the scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement provided by the specification. Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999, 85 USPQ2d 1826, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement to ensure that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims." (quotation omitted))
Here, Applicant claims “wherein the space-frequency precoding scheme is based on an effective channel combining a first per-hop channel over the first frequency and a second per-hop channel over the second frequency.” In the specification as filed, the only disclosure of “effective channel” is [0108] and the only disclose of a “per hop channel” is in [0113]. Paragraph [0108] disclosed:
In accordance with Equation 1, H38x8 (k), H28x8 (k), and H18x8 (k) may be combined to represent the effective channel Heff8x8(k). A singular value decomposition (SVD) operation may be performed on the effective channel Heff8x8(k) to obtain the three matrices U(k), A(k), and VH(k) (formatting changed, see the original for mathematical formatting).
Paragraph [0113] disclosed: “After modeling the full end-to-end channel link as Heft for an 8x8 effective E2E MIMO system, all intermediate per-hop channels may be transparent.”
These paragraphs describe specific matrices and equations. Neither of these paragraphs, nor the remainder of the disclosure, provide description that is as broad as the claimed: “wherein the space-frequency precoding scheme is based on an effective channel combining a first per-hop channel over the first frequency and a second per-hop channel over the second frequency.” Accordingly, this limitation in claim 1 lacks written description support.
Independent claims 31 and 42 as amended recite similar limitations and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by similar reasoning. Dependent claims 2-11, 32-41, and 43-48 ultimately depend on one of independent claims 1, 31, or 42 and are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Discussion of the “additional device limitation”
Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the space-frequency precoded data is transmitted to the repeater over the first frequency and the space-frequency precoded data is for forwarding to an additional wireless device over the second frequency.” On page 11 of their remarks Applicant points to paragraphs [0033], [0094]-[0096], [0117], and [0136] of the specification as filed for providing support and Applicant also provides an explanation. However, Applicant’s explanation shows how the specification supports forwarding to an additional “repeater,” not to an additional “device.” The Examiner finds that this limitation lacks written description support because the claim language is broader than what is disclosed. As stated in MPEP 2161.01:
The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand the inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed… Applicants who present broad claim language must ensure the claims are fully enabled. Specifically, the scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement provided by the specification. Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999, 85 USPQ2d 1826, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement to ensure that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims." (quotation omitted))
As shown in Applicant’s quotation of the specification on page 11 of their remarks, [0033] disclosed a “forward the space-frequency precoded data signal to a second repeater over a second frequency bandwidth”, [0136] disclosed “to the repeater 1106 (e.g., over the second frequency bandwidth.” While a “repeater” is a “device,” it is a specific type of device. The term “device” is broader than the term “repeater.” While the specification describes a “device” in numerous places, it does not appear to specifically describe wherein the space-frequency precoded data is transmitted to the repeater over the first frequency and the space-frequency precoded data is for forwarding to an additional wireless device over the second frequency” except in the specific case that the device is a repeater.
Independent claims 31 and 42 as amended recite similar limitations and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by similar reasoning. Dependent claims 2-11, 32-41, and 43-48 ultimately depend on one of independent claims 1, 31, or 42 and are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
The Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejections under §112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive since the claims have been amended to remove those limitations. The old rejections of the claims under §112(a) have been withdrawn. However, new rejections under §112(a) have been issued.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Davis whose telephone number is 703-756-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 11AM to 7PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/C.R.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights