DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/04/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1-13, 24-29, and 31-41 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitation “means for receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a message…; means for receiving, from the UE, one or more pre-equalized data transmissions…; means for decoding the one or more pre-equalized data transmissions…; means for performing the log-likelihood ratio scaling.” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means for receiving, another means for receiving , means for decoding, means for performing” coupled with functional language “receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a message…; receiving, from the UE, one or more pre-equalized data transmissions…; decoding the one or more pre-equalized data transmissions…; performing the log-likelihood ratio scaling.” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. “means for receiving, another means for receiving, means for decoding, means for performing” show no structural modifier in the claim.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that there appears to be no corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The 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.
The original filed specification nor the drawing fails to clearly define or describe in detail of the “means for receiving, another means for receiving, means for decoding, means for performing” of claims 36-40. Applicant's original filed specification fails to provide sufficient description in such a way as to enable one of ordinary skilled in the art to make and/or use of the claimed invention. For the purpose of this examination “means for receiving, another means for receiving, means for decoding, means for performing” will be any arbitrary hardware(s) or software(s) performing identical functions.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. For claims 36-40, the filed specification fails to explicitly state and define the specific structural content(s) required to perform the functions of the claimed generic placeholder, such as: “means for receiving, another means for receiving, means for decoding, means for performing”. For example: It’s not clear whether first means for receiving is the same as another means for receiving.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13,24-29,31-35 and 41 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's latest filed arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant acknowledges that claims 36-40 invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and points to paragraphs [0090]-[0109], [0148]-[0180], and Figures 7-10 as allegedly disclosing corresponding structure. However, Applicant has not identified, for each individual "means" limitation of claims 36-40, the specific structure that corresponds to that limitation, as required by MPEP 2181(II)(B). Merely identifying a collection of specification passages that each separately use "means for" language is not sufficient; the specification must clearly link or associate particular structure with each particular claimed function.
With respect to the "means for receiving" and "another means for receiving" limitations, the originally filed specification describes at least three separate disclosures, each independently characterized as a "means for receiving": (1) paragraph [0149], describing receiver 710 as providing "a means for receiving information such as packets, user data, control information, or any combination thereof"; (2) paragraph [0155], describing communications manager 720 as supporting "a means for receiving, from a UE, a message indicating a configuration of a set of LLR scaling reference signals"; and (3) the immediately following passage describing communications manager 720 as supporting "a means for receiving, from the UE, one or more pre-equalized data transmissions." Applicant's remarks do not specify which, if any, of these three disclosures corresponds to the "means for receiving" of claim, and which corresponds to "another means for receiving" of claim. Absent such identification, it remains unclear as stated in the Office Action, whether the "means for receiving" and "another means for receiving" limitations are directed to the same structure performing the recited functions, or to structurally distinct elements, and if the latter, what those distinct elements are.
Applicant's reliance on paragraph [0151] does not resolve this ambiguity. That paragraph states that "the communications manager 720, the receiver 710, the transmitter 715, or various combinations thereof or various components thereof may be examples of means for performing various aspects of reference signals for LLR scaling estimation for pre-equalized transmissions." This passage identifies an open-ended set of possible structures individually or in unspecified combination without clearly linking any particular structure or combination of structures to any particular claimed function. A disclosure that any of several components, or any combination of them, "may be" the corresponding structure does not provide the clear linkage required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine, with reasonable certainty, the structure corresponding to a given "means" limitation.
With respect to "means for decoding," Applicant points to paragraph [0152], which describes that the communications manager 720, receiver 710, transmitter 715, "or various combinations or components thereof may be implemented in hardware, which may include at least one of a processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), a central processing unit (CPU), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, a microcontroller, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof." This passage discloses, at most, a generic list of general-purpose processing hardware. Where, as here, the claimed function ("decoding… based on LLR scaling using the set of LLR scaling reference signals") is performed via software or firmware executed on such hardware, the corresponding structure under § 112(f) is not the general-purpose hardware alone, but that hardware combined with the specific algorithm disclosed for performing the claimed function. Applicant has not identified any disclosed algorithm corresponding to the "means for decoding" limitation.
Applicant additionally cites disclosures relating to both device 705 (paragraphs [0148]-[0152], [0155], with components 710/715/720) and device 1005 (paragraphs [0173]-[0175], with components 1010/1015/1020/1025/1030/1035/1040) as allegedly providing corresponding structure for the same limitations of claims 36-40. Applicant has not explained the relationship between these two disclosed embodiments, or whether communications manager 720 and communications manager 1020 (or receiver 710 and transceiver 1015) are the same structure, equivalent structures, or alternative embodiments corresponding to different claims or claim limitations. This further compounds the uncertainty as to what structure(s) Applicant contends correspond to the claimed means, since a person of ordinary skill could reasonably read claims 36-40 as corresponding to the structure of device 705, the structure of device 1005, or some unspecified combination thereof.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant has not demonstrated that the originally filed specification clearly links or associates specific structure with each of the "means for receiving," "another means for receiving," "means for decoding," and "means for performing" limitations of claims 36-40. The rejections of claims 36-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and § 112(b) are therefore maintained.
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights