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 .
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 5/30/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 6/9/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the ‘FR 2305833’ application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim construction/interpretation:
Claim 1 [method claim] recites the following limitation;
“if the power level of the signal received for an antenna and the associated front-end module is below the decision threshold, deactivating the front-end module for transmitting a data frame”
This is contingent/conditional limitation(s). The contingent/conditional limitations are not positively recited in the claim(s) and are thus only executed [or performed or implemented], when the condition is true/met.
[See, (MPEP 2111.04) II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is/are not met.]
In present claim 1, for instance the step of ‘deactivating the front-end module for transmitting a data frame’, is only performed if/when/in a case the power level of the signal received for an antenna and the associated front-end module is below the decision threshold; otherwise, this step is not performed, and the prior art is not required to teach this element when the condition is not met.
Dependent claims 3, 6-7 are related to the conditional element and thus are not required to be performed, and taught by the prior art.
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regard to the non-statutory subject matter, the claimed invention in claim 10 is directed to a “computer program product comprising instruction…” , construed and considered to include embodiments covering software per se [the Specification is silent about, computer program product]. The claimed invention being directed to an embodiment covering only software is considered non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03. The statutory subject matters are new and useful process (method), machine (apparatus), manufacture, composition of matter, and any useful improvement thereof. Thus, subject matter " computer program product" is not limited to that which falls within a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claim 10, contains ineligible non-statutory subject matter.
In claim 11, an "information storage medium" is being recited; the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to an information storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of information storage media. Therefore, a transitory information storage medium would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as signal, per se. Thus, this subject matter " information storage medium " is not limited to that which falls within a statutory category of invention because it is limited to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter. Signal per se is a function descriptive material and a function descriptive material is non-statutory subject matter.
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 use the word “means,” thus they are 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 the term ‘means’ 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: means for obtaining … a measurement of the power level, means for comparing each power level, means for deactivating a front-end module; in claim 9.
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. The corresponding structure is as shown in figure 2 and PGpub paragraphs 51-66.
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 3,7,9,10 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 7 use the term “can be” in line 2; it is not clear whether the applicant intends that phrase(s)/element(s) following terms “can” or “can be” to be optional or they should be interpreted as a definite positive element of the claimed invention; thus the use of this language renders the claim scope and boundaries open ended and thus indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "for transferring a data frame" in last line. This is unclear whether this is same “data frame” referred to in claim 1, and whether ‘transferring’ in claim 3 is referring to and should be ‘transmitting’ as in claim 1? This language in claim 3 needs to be addressed. [for examination purpose, this is considered as ‘for transmitting the data frame’]
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the management device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "The computer program product" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2020/0112863).
Regarding claim 1:
Li discloses a system and method for managing a radio interface of a communication device (abstract; figures), the radio interface comprising a plurality of antennas suitable for transmitting and receiving data frames, a front-end module being associated with each antenna, each front-end module comprising a chain for transmitting and a chain for receiving data frames (figs 1-4), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
obtaining, for each antenna and the associated front-end module, a measurement of the power level received (figs 1-4 [multiple antennas and modem with switch]; fig 6 [block 604, obtain signal measurement]; para 28, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {signal strength may be measured for each antenna}; para 3 [antenna, and modem that essentially has front end]; para 37-40),
comparing each power level obtained with a decision threshold determined from at least some of the measurements of power levels of signals received (para 40 {comparisons of the signal measurements with designated thresholds…}; fig 8-10),
if the power level of the signal received for an antenna and the associated front-end module is below the decision threshold, deactivating the front-end module for transmitting a data frame ([Note: see claim construction/interpretation above for contingent or conditional element, thus this step is not required to be taught by prior art]; para 31; figures 4,6-11; para 40; and see throughout the disclosure)).
Regarding claim 2:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the decision threshold is determined from a mean of the measurements of power levels of received signals minus a predefined value (para 31 {designated amount below an average of all antennas} [average is the mean value here, predefined value may be any value including zero, that would result in the average]; para 32,39; and throughout).
Regarding claim 3:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the predefined value is dependent on the type of modulation used for transmitting the data frame ([Note: see claim construction/interpretation above]; Li’s para 22-26,34; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 4:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the part of the measurements of power levels of received signals for determining the decision threshold comprises a predefined number of measurements of power levels of received signals that are highest among the measurements of power levels of the received signals (para 40 {highest signal strength measurement}; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 5:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the predefined number is equal to at least 1 (para 40 {highest signal strength measurement} [for an antenna provides at least 1]; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 6:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the deactivation of front-end modules is limited to the total number of front-end modules minus one ([Note: see claim construction/interpretation above]; para 31,50; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 7:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above comprising a maximum number of front-end modules that can be deactivated is dependent on the type of modulation used for transmitting data frames ([Note: see claim construction/ interpretation above]; Li’s para 31, 50; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 8:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the method is implemented prior to transmitting each data frame during a predetermined period (para 22 [configured to test a signal strength]; para 23,26,35; and throughout).
Regarding claim 9:
Li discloses a device for managing a radio interface of a communication device (abstract; figures), the radio interface comprising a plurality of antennas suitable for transmitting and receiving data frames, a front-end module being associated with each antenna, each front-end module comprising a chain for transmitting and a chain for receiving data frames (figs 1-4), wherein the management device comprises:
means for obtaining, for each antenna and the associated front-end module, a measurement of the power level received (figs 1-4 [multiple antennas and modem with switch]; fig 6 [block 604, obtain signal measurement]; para 28 {signal strength may be measured for each antenna}; para 3 [antenna, and modem that essentially has front end]; para 37-40),
means for comparing each power level obtained with a decision threshold determined from at least some of the measurements of power levels of signals received (para 40 {comparisons of the signal measurements with designated thresholds…}; fig 8-10),
means for deactivating a front-end module for transmitting a data frame if the power level of the signal received for an antenna and the associated front-end module is below the decision threshold (figures 4,6-11; para 31 {particular antenna consistently has signal measurements with a signal strength or signal quality below a designated threshold, or a beyond a designated amount below an average of all antennas, … used for antenna selection, deselection, exclusion, and/or removal from a pool, as will be discussed in greater detail below} [here, deselection is equivalent to deactivating; and power level as RSSI described in present application see para 80 of pgpub]; figures; para 40; and see throughout the disclosure).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0112863) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2025/0317193).
Regarding claim 10:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that computer program product comprising instructions for implementing, by a processor, the method according to claim 1, when said program is executed by said processor.
However, Hwang in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for managing multiple reception chains where computer program product comprising instructions when executed by a processor performs the function to control the transceiver chains (figures; para 73,85,214,252; and throughout disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Hwang in Li in order to implement the method in software. The implemented software would perform same function of the hardware for less expense, adaptability, and flexibility, and reduce cost and improve the adaptability and flexibility of the system (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 11:
Li discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that an information storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions for implementing, by a processor, the method according to claim 1, when said program is read and executed by said processor.
However, Hwang in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for managing multiple reception chains where an information storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions for implementing, by a processor, the method when said program is read and executed by said processor to control the transceiver chains (figures; para 73,85,214,252; and throughout disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Hwang in Li in order to implement the method in software. The implemented software would perform same function of the hardware for less expense, adaptability, and flexibility, and reduce cost and improve the adaptability and flexibility of the system (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Das et al. (US 2015/0023400) discloses a system and method for antenna activity detection in multi antenna communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights