CTFR 18/687,524 CTFR 82683 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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 selection unit to permit 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2015/0244432) hereafter Wang 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. Wang 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 3-7; fig 3, 314, 316, 317; para 44-46) ; 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 (fig 3, 314, 316, 317; para 44-46) ; and determining the subset by transmitting a pilot signal from the communication partner (para 44) . Wang discloses MIMO 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 Wang with the implementation of Johnson in order to achieve higher signal to noise ratio and better received amplitude (Section: Transmit Beamforming (TXBF)) . Wang 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 Wang and Johnson with the implementation of Li in order to improve the precision of channel estimation (para 13) . 2. Wang, 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 (Wang, para 3-7, sweep through a number of antenna beam directions to determine the beam with the best signal quality) . 3. Wang, Johnson, and Li disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the directional transmission parameters include beamforming parameters and/or directional sensitivity parameters (Wang, para 44-46) . 4. Wang, Johnson, and Li disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the multi-antenna arrangement comprises a radio antenna arrangement (Wang, fig. 2 and corresponding text; Li, para 2, 22) . The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above. 7. Wang, 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 (Wang, para 44-46) . 8. Wang, Johnson, and Li disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the subset is determined by a reference measurement (Wang, fig 3, 311 and corresponding text) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2015/0244432) hereafter Wang in view of MIMO is Spatial to Us by Johnson hereafter Johnson . 9. Wang discloses a communication device comprising: a multi-antenna arrangement designed for directional transmission (para 3-7; fig 3, 314, 316, 317; para 44-46) ; a selection unit to permit only a subset of the directional transmission parameters dependent on a communication partner of the communication device (fig 3, 314, 316, 317; para 44-46) . Wang discloses MIMO 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 Wang with the implementation of Johnson in order to achieve higher signal to noise ratio and better received amplitude (Section: Transmit Beamforming (TXBF)) . 10. Wang 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 07-40 AIA 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/687,524 Page 2 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/687,524 Page 3 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/687,524 Page 4 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/687,524 Page 5 Art Unit: 2439 Application/Control Number: 18/687,524 Page 6 Art Unit: 2439
Prosecution Insights