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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 2026-02-10 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-07-06 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 11-12 have been amended. Claim(s) 7 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 21 has/have been newly added.
The specification was amended to overcome the objection made in the office action dated 2026-04-03. This amendment is acceptable and the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2026-07-06, with respect to claims 1, 11, 12 and their dependents have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 has been withdrawn.
However, the amendments added to claim 11 introduce new limitations that necessitate a new rejection as detailed below.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 states “wherein the quality vectors are error vectors and the quality metric is an error vector magnitude (EVM) such that cross-correlation for MIMO EVM measurements…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “MIMO EVM measurements” in the claim. It is unclear, from the claim, when these MIMO EVM measurements take place as taking such measurements is not mentioned elsewhere in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that the term “MIMO” is a naming convention and refers to the “multiple transmission signals” and “multiple reception branches” mentioned elsewhere throughout the claim. Further clarification is required.
Additionally, Claim 11 states “error vector magnitude” At the very end of the claim. It is unclear if this is a typographical error and should not be in the claim or if this is part of a limitation that was intended to be in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this as though it was not part of the claim at all.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 and 12-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, the inclusion of the limitations “transmitting multiple transmission signals by the multiple transmission antennas of the device under test, wherein the multiple transmission signals are obtained by applying a transmission mapping on a signal to be transmitted by the device under test, wherein the transmission mapping applied comprises a MIMO mapping matrix, wherein the signal to be transmitted comprises several symbols which are transmitted on different carriers and/or in a certain temporal order by the multiple transmission antennas of the device under test” in lines 4-9 and the inclusion how the quality vectors are expressed found in lines 31-37 has not been found in the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 12, the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the averaging sub-circuit comprises a multiplication unit and an averaging unit, wherein the multiplication unit is configured to multiply the first quality vector with a complex conjugate of the second quality vector, thereby obtaining a complex-valued multiplication signal, wherein the averaging unit is configured to average the complex-valued multiplication signal over a predetermined number of samples such that the averaging sub-circuit is configured to determine a combined average of the first quality vector and of the complex conjugate of the second quality vector over the predetermined number of samples, thereby obtaining a complex- valued average signal” in lines 20-27 has not been found in the prior art of record.
The closest prior art is Mohindra (US-20250067782-A1) in view of Lee (US-20190348760-A1). Mohindra in view of Lee teaches the limitations as outlined in the office action dated 2026-04-03, but fails to disclose the at least the limitations described above. It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claims 2-6, 8-10 and 13-21, these claims depend from their respective allowed parent claims and are therefore allowable for the same reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 10:30-17:00 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
