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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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: a monitoring unit configured to verify 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.
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 § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja et al. (US 2018/0249453) hereafter Nagaraja in view of MIMO is Spatial to Us by Johnson hereafter Johnson and further in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0312057) hereafter Li.
1. Nagaraja discloses a method for communicating with two or more communication partners using a multi-antenna arrangement designed for directional transmission, the method comprising:
operating the multi-antenna arrangement using directional transmission parameters (para 130-132; see also figs 4-5 and corresponding text);
limiting the directional transmission parameters for a particular communication partner to a subset of the directional transmission parameters, the subset depending on the particular communication partner (para 131-133); and
determining the subset by transmitting a pilot signal from the communication partner (48, 53, 95, 99, 112);
storing the determined subset in a directional transmission parameter whitelist defining permissible sets of directional transmission parameters (para 134-135); and
using determined directional transmission parameters for communication with the particular communication partner only if the determined directional transmission parameters are permissible according to the directional transmission parameter whitelist (para 135).
Nagaraja discloses MIMO (para 37), phase and amplitude (para 53) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the subset of directional transmission parameters includes at least an amplitude and a phase of the transmission. However, in an analogous art, Johnson discloses MIMO technology including wherein the subset of directional transmission parameters includes at least an amplitude and a phase of the transmission (Section: Transmit Beamforming (TXBF), TxBF allows a MIMO transmitter using multiple antennas to adjust the phase and amplitude). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Nagaraja with the implementation of Johnson in order to achieve higher signal to noise ratio and better received amplitude (Section: Transmit Beamforming (TXBF)).
Nagaraja and Johnson do not explicitly disclose a cryptographically protected pilot signal. However, in an analogous art, Li discloses channel estimation including a cryptographically protected pilot signal (para 23-26). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Nagaraja and Johnson with the implementation of Li in order to improve the precision of channel estimation (para 13).
2. Nagaraja, Johnson, and Li disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the directional transmission parameters cause the multi-antenna arrangement to send communication signals directionally or to produce direction-dependent sensitivity in the multi-antenna arrangement (Nagaraja, para 65, 130-135).
3. Nagaraja, Johnson, and Li disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the directional transmission parameters include beamforming parameters and/or directional sensitivity parameters (Nagaraja, para 130-135).
4. Nagaraja, Johnson, and Li disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the multi-antenna arrangement comprises a radio antenna arrangement (Nagaraja, para 53, 57-58; fig 3).
7. Nagaraja, Johnson, and Li disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the subset is selected on the basis of either a relative position in relation to the communication partner or context information (Nagaraja, para 130-135).
8. Nagaraja, Johnson, and Li disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the subset is determined by a reference measurement (Nagaraja, para 130-135).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja (US 2015/0244432) hereafter Nagaraja in view of MIMO is Spatial to Us by Johnson hereafter Johnson.
9. Nagaraja discloses a communication device comprising: a multi-antenna arrangement designed for directional transmission (para 53, 57-58; fig 3); a monitoring unit configured to verify transmission parameters using a directional transmission parameter whitelist defining permissible sets of directional transmission parameters (para 130-135), and to permit only a subset of the directional transmission parameters dependent on a communication partner of the communication device and the directional transmission parameter whitelist (para 130-135). Nagaraja discloses MIMO (para 37), phase and amplitude (para 53) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the subset of directional transmission parameters includes at least an amplitude and a phase of the transmission. However, in an analogous art, Johnson discloses MIMO technology including wherein the subset of directional transmission parameters includes at least an amplitude and a phase of the transmission (Section: Transmit Beamforming (TXBF), TxBF allows a MIMO transmitter using multiple antennas to adjust the phase and amplitude). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Nagaraja with the implementation of Johnson in order to achieve higher signal to noise ratio and better received amplitude (Section: Transmit Beamforming (TXBF)).
10. Nagaraja discloses the communication device as claimed in claim 9, the communication device comprising a transmission device and/or a reception device (figs 1 and 2 and corresponding text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7-3.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/JAMES R TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights