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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 21 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, based on the following guidance.
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: processing unit in at least claim 1, reception unit in at least claim 10, and transmission unit in at least claim 16.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on pages 3-4. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: both occurrences of “plurality of the first communication device” should be --plurality of the first communication devices-- (paras. 218-219 of the specification). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b):
(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.
(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 the first two paragraphs 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.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Regarding claims 1-19 and 21, the claims purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fail to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claims recite a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Examiner suggests in the specification equating the claimed units with structure. For example, in the specification the processing unit could be equated with a well-known processor.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claims 1-19 and 21, limitations “processing unit,” “receiving unit” and “transmitting unit” invoke 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. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims 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 claims, 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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9-13 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimpu et al. (US 2022/0338017) in view of Sevindik (US 2022/159756).
Regarding claim 1, Cimpu discloses a communication control device (fig. 3, SAS) comprising a processing unit (fig. 18, item 410/430; para. 136) configured to: detect a first communication device (fig. 3, CBSD and step 52) capable of transmitting a signal in a target period (para. 60; note: TDD configuration of CBSDs); and determine a beam pattern allowable for the first communication device (fig. 3, step 56; fig. 5; para. 6) in the target period on a basis of an interference amount given to a protection target by the first communication device (para. 56; paras. 60-62; note: interference mitigation below a threshold for a CBSD using time division duplexing or time division multiplexing for target periods of transmission).
However, Cimpu fails to disclose detecting a device capable of transmitting a signal in a target period on a basis of setting information defining a period in which a plurality of communication devices are capable of transmitting the signal. Sevindik discloses control of CSBDs based on setting information defining a period in which the plurality of communication devices are capable of transmitting a signal (fig. 9, items 195-1 and 195-2; note: general public channels existing with government use channels and/or licensee channels for some period; paras. 129-130 and 132; note: incumbent usage in an area near the CBSD). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect a device capable of transmitting a signal in a target period on a basis of setting information defining a period in which a plurality of communication devices are capable of transmitting the signal in the invention of Cimpu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing interference control on devices on an intermittent, periodic or occasional basis as is known in the art (Sevindik, fig. 9 and paras. 129-130 and 132; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 9, Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the transmission of the signal by the plurality of communication devices is downlink transmission to terminal devices present in cells of the plurality of communication devices (Cimpu, para. 45; note: base station communicating a downlink with (toward) a UE).
Regarding claim 10, Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, further comprising a reception unit (Cimpu, item 450/470) that receives a registration request for requesting registration of a device parameter of the first communication device (Cimpu, steps 52 and 54), wherein the processing unit determines the beam pattern allowable for the first communication device for the target period in which the first communication device can transmit the signal in response to reception of the registration request (Cimpu, step 56).
Regarding claim 11, Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, further comprising a reception unit (Cimpu, item 450/470) that receives a query request regarding an available spectrum of the first communication device (Cimpu, steps 52 and 54; paras. 55, 97 and 100; fig. 14), wherein the processing unit determines the beam pattern allowable for the first communication device for the target period in which the first communication device can transmit the signal in response to reception of the query request (Cimpu, step 56).
Regarding claim 12, Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, further comprising a reception unit (Cimpu, item 450/470) that receives a use permission request for requesting a use permission of a spectrum by the first communication device (Cimpu, steps 52 and 54; paras. 55, 97 and 100; fig. 14), wherein the processing unit determines the beam pattern allowable for the first communication device for the target period in which the first communication device can transmit the signal in response to reception of the use permission request (Cimpu, step 56).
Regarding claim 13, Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of communication devices belongs to a lower layer having a lower priority of radio wave use than the protection target (Cimpu, para. 5, especially the last three sentence; Sevindik, fig. 9 and para. 68), and the processing unit (Cimpu, item 430; para. 136) performs calculation processing for protecting the protection target from interference by the lower layer in cooperation with another communication control device (Cimpu, item 440; para. 136), and performs detection of the first communication device for the target period (fig. 3, CBSD and step 52; para. 60; note: TDD configuration of CBSDs); and determination of the beam pattern allowable for the first communication device in the calculation processing (Cimpu, step 56).
Regarding claim 17, Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to:
Regarding claim 18, Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit determines transmission power to be used when the first communication device transmits the signal in the beam pattern (Cimpu, para. 56; note: EIRP; note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of transmission power is EIRP as noted in the specification of the instant application, paras. 106 and 189).
Regarding claim 19, Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, further comprising a transmission unit (Cimpu, item 450/470) that transmits information indicating the beam pattern determined to the first communication device (steps 56-58).
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1 from the perspective of the communication device (Cimpu, fig. 3, CBSD). In addition, Cimpu discloses the communication device that performs transmission of a signal and reception of a signal in a time division manner (Cimpu, para. 60; note: TDD configuration of CBSDs; para. 56; paras. 60-62; note: interference mitigation below a threshold for a CBSD using time division duplexing or time division multiplexing for target periods of transmission), the communication device comprising: a reception unit (Cimpu, fig. 18, item 450/470) that receives information regarding a beam pattern allowable for the communication device in a target period of a period in which the signal can be transmitted (Cimpu, fig. 3, steps 56-58); and a processing unit (Cimpu, item 410/430) that transmits the signal using the beam pattern based on the information in the target period (Cimpu, steps 60-62 and 68; figs. 4-7; Sevindik, fig. 9 and paras. 129-130 and 132; note: general public channels existing with government use channels and/or licensee channels for some period).
Regarding claim 22, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 21.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cimpu in view of Sevindik as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Al-Mufti et al. (US 2022/0225109 as supported by the corresponding passages of U.S. Provisional application 63/135,983).
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood in light of the claim objection), Cimpu in view of Sevindik teaches and makes obvious determining a beam pattern allowable for a plurality of first communication devices (Cimpu, fig. 3 and para. 52; note: directional EIRP for more than one CBSD) but fails to teach and make obvious the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit determines a beam pattern allowable for a plurality of the first communication devices in the target period on a basis of a cumulative interference amount given to the protection target by the plurality of the first communication devices. However, Al-Mufti discloses assigned resources to CBSDs (figs. 3 and 5) based on cumulative interference to an incumbent device, devices or users (para. 17; para. 18, especially lines 25-40; note: sum of aggregate interference from CBSDs to an incumbent user or protection point; para. 20, first sentence; note: incumbent user as a protection point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the processing unit determines a beam pattern allowable for a plurality of the first communication devices in the target period on a basis of a cumulative interference amount given to the protection target by the plurality of the first communication devices in the invention of Cimpu in view of Sevindik. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, limiting interference to a protection device as is known in the art (Al-Mufti, paras. 17-18 and 22; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462