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
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/10/2026, with respect to the USC 102(a)(1) rejection relying on the prior art Beg have been fully considered and are persuasive. The USC 102 and related 103 rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
Please note in light of the amendments to the claims, the USC 101 rejection as well as the USC 112 rejections not tied to the USC 112(f) interpretation have also been withdrawn as they have been corrected for.
Additionally, this response is filed as non-final rejection to include the additional 112(a) rejection for written description concerns based on the maintained 112(f) and 112(b) issues per the MPEP teachings.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 with regards to the 112(f) invocation by the claim language and the associated 112(b) rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s arguments but respectfully disagrees that all grounds for rejection have been overcome.
Applicant’s argument: Excerpt from remarks filed 6/10/2026: “The claims are further rejected as allegedly invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) while 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. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Provided herein as non-limiting examples, the Present Application discloses, and clearly links, the corresponding structure and algorithm for each recited unit. The signal-emission control device 100/200 and its emission-value ascertainment unit 102/202, transmitter-control unit 104/204, and receiver-control unit 106/206 are shown as structural blocks in FIGS. 2 and 4, and the wireless receiver device 254 and its radiofrequency communication signal-receiving unit 258, control-data input unit 260, and subject-activity determination unit 262 are shown in FIG. 5.
See, e.g., Present Application, paras. 113-114, 119-120, and 128. The specification further sets out the algorithm each unit performs: the emission-value ascertainment unit ascertains variation-data by receiving it, accessing a storage unit, or generating it in accordance with the variation schemes exemplified in FIG. 3 and Tables 1-2; the transmitter-control unit controls the emission unit to transmit the RF communication signals using the varied parameter values; and the receiver-control unit controls provision of the control-data, for example by including it as a payload or payload extension of the RF communication signal. See, e.g., Present Application, paras. 77-78, 113-117, and 127. FIGS. 6 and 7 set out the corresponding method steps. See, e.g., Present Application, paras. 131-132. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the corresponding structure and algorithm clearly linked to each claimed function. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
Examiner’s response: The Examiner has reviewed the applicant’s remarks, and additionally has reviewed the disclosure as a whole again in search for sufficient disclosure of the limitations which invoke 112(f). However, after review the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s positions and statements towards this matter. First, the applicant has pointed to several specific numbered elements in the figures. Each of these simply shows a ‘black box’ configuration, which the MPEP clearly holds as not sufficient in the disclosure of structure, see for example MPEP 2181(I)(A). As such, simply pointing to the numbered elements of the figures does not support in any way a disclosure of structure. The applicant further points to paragraphs within the disclosure as providing the supporting algorithms. In review of these paragraphs, they are drawn towards the disclosure of the ‘emission-value ascertainment unit’. This disclosure is pointed to in order to provide an algorithm. However, the provided algorithm, even if sufficient, would only provide support for the structure of one individual element, not for each element pointed to as invoking 112(f) and having correlated 112(b) rejections. Further, in review of the cited paragraphs, the MPEP requires that either structure, or a computer and algorithm are provided to perform the function. The disclosure has not provided structure, and so the paragraphs recited must support the disclosure of the specified ‘unit’ using a computer and an algorithm. The specified disclosure recites, looking specifically at paragraph 116 and the associated tables, an equation, which the Examiner would qualify as the required algorithm (again, only for this singular unit). However, the MPEP and examples of successful structural considerations require the disclosure of a computer and an algorithm. In this instance, the disclosure has only provided an algorithm, which again fails to meet the full requirements for the disclosure of structure. All other paragraphs, cited and not cited have been reviewed, and the Examiner has not found any additional support or disclosure for the additional ‘units’ recites in the claims. It is noted that there is a broad disclosure of a computer implementation of one potential embodiment, but there is not a specific disclosure of a computer plus an algorithm to sufficiently support a structural interpretation of any of the claimed ‘unit’ elements. As such, and with additional support from the cited MPEP sections below regarding the algorithm needing to disclose all functions, the grounds for interpretation and rejection under 112(f) and 112(b) are respectfully maintained, again noting that even if the disclosure of structure was fully clarified for one unit, it would not remove the considerations of all units. Please further consider the disclosure of MPEP 2181(II)(B) which states among other pertinent details “The sufficiency of the algorithm is determined in view of what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as sufficient to define the structure and make the boundaries of the claim understandable. For example, in Williamson, the Federal Circuit found that the term "distributed learning control module" is a means-plus- function limitation that performs three specialized functions (i.e., "receiving,", "relaying," and "coordinating"), which "must be implemented in a special purpose computer." Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351-52, 115 USPQ2d at 1113. The Federal Circuit explained that "[w]here there are multiple claimed functions, as we have here, the [specification] must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed functions." Id., 115 USPQ2d at 1115. Yet the Federal Circuit determined that the specification "fails to disclose any structure corresponding to the ‘coordinating’ function." Id. at 1354, 115 USPQ2d at 1115. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found no "disclosure of an algorithm corresponding to the claimed ‘coordinating’ function," concluding that the figures in the specification relied upon by patentee as disclosing the required algorithm, instead describe "a presenter display interface" and not an algorithm corresponding to the claimed "coordinating" function. Id. at 1353-54, 115 USPQ2d at 1114-15. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that claims containing the "distributed learning control module" limitation are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Id. at 1354, 115 USPQ2d at 1115. See also Noah, 675 F.3d at 1319, 102 USPQ2d at 1421 (holding that "[c]omputer- implemented means-plus- function claims are indefinite unless the specification discloses an algorithm to perform the function associated with the limitation[,]" and that "[w]hen the specification discloses an algorithm that only accomplishes one of multiple identifiable functions performed by a means-plus- function limitation, the specification is treated as if it disclosed no algorithm.").” and further discloses “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI. Examiners should further consider whether the disclosure contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention in compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection III, and MPEP § 2164.08.”.
Claim Interpretation
(maintained from previous action)
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:
“a signal-emission control device for preventing illegitimate use of wireless radiofrequency” in claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13
“an emission value ascertainment unit configured to ascertain variation-data indicative of an emission-value variation” in claim 1
“a transmitter control unit … configured to control operation of the at least one of the transmitter devices” in claim 1
“a receiver control unit … configured to control a provision, to at least one of the wireless receiver devices” in claim 1
“a context data ascertainment unit that is configured to ascertain network-context data pertaining to the devices” in claim 3
“a scheduling unit configured to ascertain operation-trigger data indicative of predetermined operation-conditions” in claim 6
“an encryption unit… configured to encrypt the control data” in claim 7
“a radiofrequency communication signal emission unit … configured to provide the wireless radiofrequency communication signals” in claim 8
“a radiofrequency communication signal receiving unit configured to receive wireless radiofrequency communication signals” in claim 10
“a control data input unit configured to receive…control data indicative of the signal parameter value” in claim 10
a subject activity determination unit … configured to determine a reception-signal value of the one or more of the signal parameters” in claim 10
“a decryption unit ... configured to decrypt encrypted control-data” in claim 11
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to determine a subject activity of a subject” in claim 12
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to determine a subject activity of a subject” in claim 14
Transmitter device and receiver device are interpreted as not invoking 112f interpretation because "transmitter" and "receiver" are structural modifiers to provide sufficient structure known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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(b)
(updated from prior action to consider amendments to the claims)
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 1-20 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 limitations:
“a signal-emission control device for” in claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13
“an emission value ascertainment unit configured to” in claim 1
“a transmitter control unit … configured to” in claim 1
“a receiver control unit … configured to” in claim 1
“a context data ascertainment unit that is configured to” in claim 3
“a scheduling unit configured to” in claim 6
“an encryption unit… configured to” in claim 7
“a radiofrequency communication signal emission unit … configured to” in claim 8
“a radiofrequency communication signal receiving unit configured to” in claim 10
“a control data input unit configured to” in claim 10
a subject activity determination unit … configured to” in claim 10
“a decryption unit ... configured to” in claim 11
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to” in claim 12
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to” in claim 14
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. In the above noted claim elements, each limitation triggers a 112f interpretation based on the three-prong analysis, but then fails to provide specific structural disclosure or sufficient computer and algorithm combinations for each respective element. 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 § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-20 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 MPEP states in 2181 “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection VI.”
MPEP 2163.03 (VI) recites “A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181.”
Therefore, all limitations noted in the rejections above as invoking a 112(f) interpretation and additionally as failing to meet the disclosure requirements of 112(b), would additionally fail to meet the written description requirement for 112(a) as provided by the MPEP guidance.
This rejection applies to the disclosure of claim limitations:
“a signal-emission control device for” in claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13
“an emission value ascertainment unit configured to” in claim 1
“a transmitter control unit … configured to” in claim 1
“a receiver control unit … configured to” in claim 1
“a context data ascertainment unit that is configured to” in claim 3
“a scheduling unit configured to” in claim 6
“an encryption unit… configured to” in claim 7
“a radiofrequency communication signal emission unit … configured to” in claim 8
“a radiofrequency communication signal receiving unit configured to” in claim 10
“a control data input unit configured to” in claim 10
a subject activity determination unit … configured to” in claim 10
“a decryption unit ... configured to” in claim 11
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to” in claim 12
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to” in claim 14
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights