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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more variable signal parameters”. Later in claim 1 the language “of one or more of the signal parameters” is used. In claims 5 and 6, the language “the one or more signal parameters” is used. In claim 10, the language “the one or more signal parameters” and “the one or more of the signal parameters” is used. Claim 8 uses the language ‘one or more signal parameters”. Claim 12 uses the language “of at least one signal parameter”. These claims are all tied together through claimed dependency, and all referring to the limitation initially established in claim 1. While antecedent issues are addressed below, these claims should use uniform language to refer to the established limitation. The language establishes “one or more variable signal parameters” in claim 1, and any reference to this established limitation should be in the form of “the one or more variable signal parameters” rather than using a plurality of different wording conventions to confuse the scope of the claims.
In claims 4 and 6, ‘the communication network’ should read ‘the wireless communication network’.
Claim 13 established “one or more signal parameters” and then continues to use the language “one or more of the signal parameters” and “the one or more signal parameter”. Claim 14 references “at least one signal parameter” and “the one of more signal parameter”. While antecedent issues are addressed below, these claims should use uniform language to refer to the established limitation. The language establishes “one or more signal parameters” in claim 13, and any reference to this established limitation should be in the form of “the one or more signal parameters” rather than using a plurality of different wording conventions to confuse the scope of the claims.
Please note that all claims not explicitly pointed to are objected to due to their dependency to the specifically noted claims above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
‘an emission-value ascertainment unit configured to ascertain variation-data’ in claim 1
‘a scheduling unit configured to ascertain operation-trigger data’ in claim 1
‘a transmitter control unit…configured to determine whether the predetermined operation-conditions are fulfilled’ in claim 1
‘a context-data ascertainment unit that is configured to ascertain network-context data’ in claim 3
‘a receiver-control unit…configured to control a provision’ in claim 6
‘an encryption unit…configured to encrypt the control data’ in claim 7
‘a radiofrequency communication signal emission unit…configured to’ in claim 8
‘a receiver control unit…configured to receive wireless communication signals’ in claim 9
‘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’ in claim 10
‘a subject-activity determination unit …configured to determine a reception signal value’ in claim 10
‘a decryption unit…configured to decrypt encrypted control data’ in claim 11
‘a signal-emission control device for controlling emission of wireless radiofrequency communication signals” in claim 13
Examiner’s note- Claims 1 and 13 recites “at least one … transmitter device and at least one … receiver device” which on review of steps B and C are not interpreted to be invoking 112(f). A such later recitation in claim 1 of “at least one of the transmitter devices for transmitting” and “at least one transmitter device configured to provide” in claim 12 are further interpreted as not invoking 112(f).
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
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, 3-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the respective signal parameter value" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the respective receiver device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the respective wireless radiofrequency communication signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the respective wireless communication signal" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the respective control data" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the respective wireless communication signal" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation ‘the devices’, which is indefinite and unclear as there are multiple variations of ‘device’ established in the prior claim language and it is unclear what element is meant to give antecedent basis to this limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation ‘the devices’, which is indefinite and unclear as there are multiple variations of ‘device’ established in the prior claim language and it is unclear what element is meant to give antecedent basis to this limitation.
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 has established ‘at least one wireless receiver device’, while claim 6 further recites ‘at least one of the wireless receiver devices’, this creates an indefinite nature to the scope of the claim, as claim 1 has not explicitly established more than one receiver device, while claim references an established multiple receiver devices, common wording and language should be used to clearly establish the scope and antecedent basis of the claimed limitations.
Claim 7 recites ‘the respective receiver device’ which lacks clarity in scope and antecedent relationship to the limitations of claims 6 and 1 by dependence, further complicating, and complicated by, the issues noted of claim 6.
Claim 8 recites limitations regarding a transmitter device, communication signals, parameter values and signal parameters; and then further establishes to include all limitations of claim 1, which itself discloses these limitations, creating antecedent confusion and an indefinite scope of the claim.
Claim 10 recites ‘a subject activity’ and ‘a subject’ while claiming the limitations of claim 6 and thereby 1, which already disclose ‘a subject’ and ‘an activity state’ of ‘a subject’, creating antecedent confusion and an unclear scope for the claimed limitations.
Claim 12 recites ‘a subject activity’ and ‘a subject’ while claiming the limitations of claim 6 and thereby 1, which already disclose ‘a subject’ and ‘an activity state’ of ‘a subject’, creating antecedent confusion and an unclear scope for the claimed limitations.
Claim 12 recites ‘at least one transmitter device’ at two different instances without using ‘the’ to create an appropriate antecedent relationship, thereby confusing the scope of the claims.
Claim 12 recites ‘at least one receiver device’ at two different instances without using ‘the’ to create an appropriate antecedent relationship, thereby confusing the scope of the claims.
Claim 13 recites ‘the transmitter device’ in line 23 however the antecedent relationship is rendered unclear, as it is unclear if this limitation is to refer to ‘at least one transmitter device’ or ‘a respective transmitter device’
Claim 14 recites the limitations ‘at least one transmitter device’ and ‘the transmitter device’, while also claiming dependence to claim 13, confusing the antecedent relationship between the various limitations related to the multiple designations of ‘transmitter device’
Claims 8, 10, 12 and 14 have couched a dependency to a previous claim within the body of the current claim. In doing so, they have created multiple instances of antecedent basis and wording precedent confusion in the claim language. The Examiner has detailed examples, but each of these claims has created an unclear and indefinite scope by using different wording conventions to refer to the same and previously established element and by failing to establish and uphold antecedent relationships between the claimed elements. Review of each limitation is required for these claims so that clear reference to the claimed elements is consistently made using common language throughout all claims, and so that a proper and consistent antecedent relationship is established and upheld throughout the claimed limitations.
Regarding all claims, please note that the Examiner has done their best to indicate and provide examples of instances when the applicant has used slightly different naming conventions to refer to the same element. These differences only serve to create confusion in the scope of the claims and make antecedent relationships more difficult to understand. Please review the noted objections, the noted rejections, and all other claim limitations to ensure that the claimed limitations are corrected to ensure clarity for the scope of the claims.
Note claims not explicitly pointed to for rejection are still rejected in light of claimed dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim limitations “‘an emission-value ascertainment unit configured to ascertain variation-data’ in claim 1; ‘a scheduling unit configured to ascertain operation-trigger data’ in claim 1; ‘a transmitter control unit…configured to determine whether the predetermined operation-conditions are fulfilled’ in claim 1; ‘a context-data ascertainment unit that is configured to ascertain network-context data’ in claim 3; ‘a receiver-control unit…configured to control a provision’ in claim 6; ‘an encryption unit…configured to encrypt the control data’ in claim 7; ‘a radiofrequency communication signal emission unit…configured to’ in claim 8; ‘a receiver control unit…configured to receive wireless communication signals’ in claim 9; ‘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’ in claim 10; ‘a subject-activity determination unit …configured to determine a reception signal value’ in claim 10; ‘a decryption unit…configured to decrypt encrypted control data’ in claim 11; and ‘a signal-emission control device for controlling emission of wireless radiofrequency communication signals” in claim 13” 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. For each instance noted above wherein a 112(f) interpretation has been invoked, the disclosure fails to provide specific and sufficient structure as to how these means plus function limitations are to be implemented or achieved. 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
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, 3-15 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11 and 13 are rejected for invoking 112(f) in the specific limitations noted above, failing to provide the corresponding sufficient structure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 112(b), and thus failing to meet the written description requirement for these limitations 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 MPEP 2163.03(VI).
Note claims not explicitly pointed to for rejection are still rejected in light of claimed dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed towards “a computer program comprising instructions”, and therefore represent a computer program per se (software per se).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art are cited in light of the review for double patenting issues:
Kranjc (US Pubs 20240259810, 20240259809)
The following prior art are cited as relevant to the scope of the claimed invention despite failing to explicitly anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claims:
Regani (US Pub 20230333201)
Kenney (US Pub 20210211152)
Hu (US Pub 20240064691)
Zhu (US Pub 20240125888)
Regani (US Pub 20250124110)
Lejeune JR. (US Pat 11490278)
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