DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that claims foreign priority to a Japanese application filed on 25 May 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 21 Nov 2023 and 8 Aug 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 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 below in this section of the 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 limitations use 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. This claim limitations are “a communication unit” and “a control unit” in claim 1.
According to paragraph 22 of the disclosure, “the communication unit 131 is implemented, for example, by a processor such as a CPU or a logic circuit (hardware) formed on an integrated circuit (an IC chip) or the like.” Spec., ¶22. And similarly, in paragraph 20 of the disclosure, “[t]he control unit 111 is implemented, for example, by a processor such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or a logic circuit (hardware) formed on an integrated circuit (an Integrated Circuit (IC) chip) or the like.” Spec., ¶20. As a result, the disclosure sufficiently defines the structure of both means-plus-function limitations of claim 1 as a processor or integrated circuit.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 1-5 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.
Claims 1 and 5 recite, in part, [a] “detect a received level of each of the plurality of beams, [b] “the detected received level,” and [c] “a received level of each of the plurality of beams.” It is unclear how many “receive levels” are required by the claimed invention and if each recitation of a “receive level” refers to the same claim element. In limitations [a] and [c], because a plurality of beams are required and “each” has a receive level, limitations [a] and [c] seem to require multiple receive levels. In contrast, limitation [b] is singular and therefore seems limited to only one receive level. Additionally, the recitation of “a receive level of each of the plurality of beams” in limitations [a] and [c] results in confusion as to whether the receive levels in limitation [c] are different from those in limitation [a] because there is a lack of antecedent basis between the limitations.
Claims 2-4 are indefinite due to their dependence upon an indefinite claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20240230816).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Wang teaches a communication terminal and a method of controlling a communication terminal, where the communication terminal is configured to communicate with a base station, the communication terminal (Wang, figure 8) comprising:
an antenna configured to transmit and/or receive a plurality of beams having directivity in different directions (Wang, figure 2 and ¶36 – user terminal is able to communicate, via its quantity of antenna elements, using any one of three beams with different directions);
a communication unit configured to communicate with the base station through the plurality of beams by using the antenna and detect a received level of each of the plurality of beams (Wang, figure 4 and ¶¶39-40 – in step s401, user terminal receives a transmit beam using its plurality of receive beams, and determines the RSRP of each of the plurality of receive beams); and
a control unit configured to signal an indication prompting to change an orientation of the communication terminal based on the detected received level and directivity data indicating a received level of each of the plurality of beams in a corresponding plurality of directions. Wang, figure 4 and ¶¶47, 50 (in steps s402-s404, the user terminal determines (1) the optimal receive beam and (2) the rotation angle and rotation direction of the terminal device that are required to form an optimal receive beam. The user terminal also prompts the user to change the location, angle, and rotation of the terminal such that the user terminal is aligned in the peak direction for the optimal receive beam).
Regarding claim 2, Wang also teaches wherein the control unit determines whether there is a beam among the plurality of beams whose received level is improved over a beam currently used for communication in a case that the orientation of the communication terminal is changed (Wang, ¶¶41-44 - terminal device determines optimal beam of all receive beams and then, based on the relative location of the peak direction beam, the rotation angle and rotation direction that are required to align the peak direction beam so that it is perpendicular to the antenna panel of the network device); and signals an indication prompting to change the orientation of the communication terminal in a case that the control unit determines that there is the beam whose received level is improved. Wang, ¶47, 50 (terminal device displays prompt information to assist the user in adjusting the terminal such that the peak direction beam is used to receive the transmit beam).
Regarding claim 3, Wang also teaches wherein the control unit displays an orientation of the communication terminal where the received level is improved on a display unit in a case that the control unit determines that there is the beam whose received level is improved. Wang, figure 5 and ¶¶47-48 (terminal device displays rotation angle and direction in its notification bar or popover to put the terminal device in peak beam position).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (of record) in view of Agarwal (US 20230025445).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the communication terminal according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach its control unit “audibly outputs an indication prompting to change the orientation of the communication terminal through an audio output unit.” However, Agarwal teaches a beam alignment controller that provides audio instructions to the user for changing the orientation of the UE. Agarwal, ¶65. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to audibly prompt the user, as taught by Agarwal, when the terminal device needs adjusted for ideal beam alignment, as taught by Wang, in order to guide the user to change the orientation of the terminal device (Agarwal, ¶120), such that a maximum data rate is obtained. Agarwal, ¶88.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03, which allows for written authorization via the USPTO electronic filing system or mail, but not via email). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461