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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024-07-05 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11, 12, and 13 are objected to because of minor informalities.
In claim 4, line 1, “The wireless transmitter devices…” should read “The wireless transmitter device…”.
In claim 11, line 1, “Method for controlling…” should read “A method for controlling…”; in line 16, “…the one mor more wireless receiver device…” should read “…the one or more wireless receiver devices…”; and in line 23, “…at lease one of a 3D model…” should read “…at least one of a 3D model…”.
In claim 12, line 1, “Method for controlling…” should read “A method for controlling…”.
In claim 13, line 1, “Computer program product…” should read “A computer program product…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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
In claim 1: “a signal provision unit configured to provide…”; “an operation mode ascertaining unit configured to ascertain…”; “a signal-parameter determination unit…configured to determine…”; and “an environment-data ascertaining unit…configured to ascertain…”.
In claim 7: “a gas sensing unit…configured to…determine…” and “an activity sensing unit…configured to…determine…”.
In claim 9: “a receiver unit configured to receive…”; “a functional unit…being operational…”; “a gas sensing unit…configured to…determine…”; and “an operation-mode ascertaining unit configured to ascertain…”.
In claim 10: “an activity sensing unit…configured to…determine…”.
The above limitations all include a placeholder (e.g., “signal provision unit”, “operation-mode ascertaining unit”, “signal-parameter determination unit”, etc.) modified by functional language (e.g., “configured to provide”, “configured to ascertain”, “configured to determine”, etc.) and lacking sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function(s). Thus, the result of the three-prong analysis for each of the identified limitations dictates that they be interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Please see MPEP § 2181.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification merely repeats the claimed functional langue that appears in the claims, and fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the recited functions; the figures merely represent the claimed means- (or placeholder-) plus-function limitations as “black boxes” that do not provide sufficient corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the recited functions (e.g., each of the recited functions could be merely a block of computer program code or software per se, which are non-structural). Thus, these limitations amount to pure functional claiming.
Thus, claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). See MPEP § 2163 and § 2181, as well as section Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 below.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-10 are also 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 1 recites the following limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “a signal provision unit configured to provide…”; “an operation mode ascertaining unit configured to ascertain…”; “a signal-parameter determination unit…configured to determine…”; and “an environment-data ascertaining unit…configured to ascertain…”. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification merely repeats the claimed functional langue that appears in the claims, and fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s); the figures merely represent the claimed means- (or placeholder-) plus-function limitations as “black boxes” that do not provide sufficient corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the recited functions (e.g., each of the recited functions could be merely a block of computer program code or software per se, which are non-structural). Thus, these limitations amount to pure functional claiming. Thus, claims 1 fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). See MPEP § 2163 and § 2181, as well as section Claim Interpretation above. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the following limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “a gas sensing unit…configured to…determine…” and “an activity sensing unit…configured to…determine…”. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification merely repeats the claimed functional langue that appears in the claims, and fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s); the figures merely represent the claimed means- (or placeholder-) plus-function limitations as “black boxes” that do not provide sufficient corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the recited functions (e.g., each of the recited functions could be merely a block of computer program code or software per se, which are non-structural). Thus, these limitations amount to pure functional claiming. Thus, claim 7 fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). See MPEP § 2163 and § 2181, as well as section Claim Interpretation above. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Claim 9 recites the following limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “a receiver unit configured to receive…”; “a functional unit…being operational…”; “a gas sensing unit…configured to…determine…”; and “an operation-mode ascertaining unit configured to ascertain…”. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification merely repeats the claimed functional langue that appears in the claims, and fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s); the figures merely represent the claimed means- (or placeholder-) plus-function limitations as “black boxes” that do not provide sufficient corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the recited functions (e.g., each of the recited functions could be merely a block of computer program code or software per se, which are non-structural). Thus, these limitations amount to pure functional claiming. Thus, claim 9 fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). See MPEP § 2163 and § 2181, as well as section Claim Interpretation above. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the following limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “an activity sensing unit…configured to…determine…”. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they must be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification merely repeats the claimed functional langue that appears in the claims, and fails to provide corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s); the figures merely represent the claimed means- (or placeholder-) plus-function limitations as “black boxes” that do not provide sufficient corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the recited functions (e.g., each of the recited functions could be merely a block of computer program code or software per se, which are non-structural). Thus, these limitations amount to pure functional claiming. Thus, claim 10 fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). See MPEP § 2163 and § 2181, as well as section Claim Interpretation above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
Regarding the above rejections of claims 1-10, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim 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 (please see section Claim Interpretation above);
(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 claim, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are allowed.
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), set forth in this Office action. Examiner recommends amending the respective claims to omit the means- (or placeholder-) plus-function language and instead positively recite the claimed limitations performed by the wireless transmitter device, so that the claims are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and thus avoid the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). For example, examiner recommends that claim 1 be amended in the following manner (NOTE: dependent claims 2-10 should be amended similarly, where applicable):
A wireless transmitter device, configured to:
provide wireless communication signals in the mm-wave communication band or in the THz-communication band or in both the mm-wave communication band and the THz-communication band, hereinafter referred to as mm-wave/THz-communication signals, to one or more wireless receiver devices for data communication in accordance with a predetermined wireless communication protocol;
ascertain operation data indicative of at least one desired operation mode from a plurality of available operation modes of the wireless transmitter device, wherein the available operation modes include at least a communication operation mode for data communication between the wireless transmitter device and the one or more wireless receiver devices and a gas-sensing operation mode for sensing, using the mm-wave/THz-communication signals, a presence of a predetermined gas within a gas-sensing volume;
determine emission parameters of the mm-wave/THz-communication signals to be provided in dependence on the at least one desired operation mode;
provide mm-wave/THz-communication signals in accordance with the determined emission parameters;
ascertain environment-data indicative of a location of the wireless transmitter device and of the one or more wireless receiver devices and/or indicative of elements in the surroundings of the wireless transmitter device and/or the wireless receiver device, which affect the provided mm-wave/THz-communication signals in a detectable manner;
determine, using the ascertained environment-data, a respective set of emission parameters associated to each available operation modes;
provide the mm-wave/THz- communication signals using the set of emission parameters associated to the desired operation mode, and
wherein the environment data is received via a data input;
wherein the data input comprises at least one of a 3D model of the environment, an image data of the environment, LIDAR data, a radiofrequency data, another data type used for identifying a location of the wireless transmitter device and of the one or more wireless receiver devices and/or indicative of elements in the surroundings of the wireless transmitter device and/or the one or more wireless receiver devices.
Reasons for Allowability
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: applicant’s independent claims recite a particular combination of elements which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art.
The closes prior art, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0041295 to Ramisetti et al. (“Ramisetti”) is directed toward a terahertz (THz) sensor module for spectroscopy and imaging in dynamic environments, and yields various aspects and features of applicant’s claimed invention. Specifically, Ramisetti mentions a THz sensor module, which “when not being used for spectroscopy or imaging…can be repurposed for high speed THz-based data communication applications” (Ramisetti, ¶0033 and Figs. 1A, 11-12). Similarly, Wedage et al. (2021) explores “the use of THz spectrum simultaneously for ultrabroadband communication and atmospheric sensing by leveraging the absorption of THz signals” (Abstract).
However, Ramisette, Wedage et al., the other cited references, and a thorough search in the art does not disclose or suggest the specific combination of elements in applicant’s independent claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest:
ascertaining operation data indicative of at least one desired operation mode from a plurality of available operation modes of the wireless transmitter device, wherein the available operation modes include at least a communication operation mode for data communication between the wireless transmitter device and the one or more wireless receiver devices and a gas-sensing operation mode for sensing, using the mm-wave/THz-communication signals, a presence of a predetermined gas within a gas-sensing volume; and determining emission parameters of the mm-wave/THz-communication signals to be provided in dependence on the at least one desired operation mode; and providing mm-wave/THz-communication signals to one or more wireless receiver devices for data communication in accordance with a predetermined wireless communication protocol and in accordance with the determined emission parameters, ascertain environment-data indicative of a location of the wireless transmitter device and of the one or more wireless receiver devices and/or indicative of elements in the surroundings of the wireless transmitter device and/or the one mor [sic] more wireless receiver device, which affect the provided mm-wave/THz-communication signals in a detectable manner, determining, using the ascertained environment-data, a respective set of emission parameters associated to each available operation modes; providing the mm-wave/THz-communication signals using the set of emission parameters associated to the desired operation mode, and wherein, for ascertaining the environment-data, receiving the environment data via a data input; wherein the data input comprises at least one of a 3D model of the environment, an image data of the environment, LIDAR data, a radiofrequency data, another data type used for identifying a location of the wireless transmitter device and of the one or more wireless receiver devices and/or indicative of elements in the surroundings of the wireless transmitter devices and/or the wireless receiver device.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to arrive at applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight.
Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chen, Chia-Chi et al. (2021). Terahertz spectroscopy and imaging in dynamic environments (US 20210041292 A1). Filed 2019-08-08.
Coleman, Zane (2020). Method of illuminating an environment using an angularly varying light emitting device and an imager (US 10816939 B1). Filed 2019-05-07.
Coleman, Zane (2021). Angularly varying light emitting device with an imager (US 20210112647 A1). Filed 2020-10-27.
Federici, John Francis (2010). Methods of rapid phase modulation of thz radiation for high speed thz imaging, spectroscopy, and communications devices and systems (US 20100001189 A1). Filed 2009-05-04.
Jeon, Jeongho et al. (2023). Power control and beam management for communication and sensing (US 20230076874 A1). Filed 2022-06-14.
Jones, Ii, Kenneth A. et al. (2019). Wireless gas detection sensor (US 20190035253 A1). Filed 2017-02-08.
Kawamae, Osamu et al. (2021). Terahertz wave detection device, terahertz wave detection method, and terahertz wave detection system (US 20210318234 A1). Filed 2018-07-20.
Leu, et al. (2004). Gas analysis system and method (US 20040124357 A1). Filed 2003-08-29.
Nunally, Patrick O'Neal (2007). Systems and methods for operational, systems or integrity management of natural gas pipeline infrastructures (US 20070261505 A1). Filed 2006-05-12.
O'Hara, John F. et al. (2022). Methods and tunable apparatuses for dynamic dispersion compensation of wireless terahertz signals (US 11431377 B1). Filed 2020-09-10.
Ramisetti, Sireesha et al. (2021). Terahertz spectroscopy and imaging in dynamic environments with spectral response enhancements (US 20210041293 A1). Filed 2019-08-08.
Ramisetti, Sireesha et al. (2021). Terahertz sensor module for spectroscopy and imaging (US 20210041295 A1). Filed 2019-08-08.
Sarieddeen et al., "Next Generation Terahertz Communications: A Rendezvous of Sensing, Imaging, and Localization," in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 69-75, May 2020, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.1900698.
Shaker, George et al. (2021). System and method for sensing with millimeter waves for sleep position detection, vital signs monitoring and/or driver detection (US 20210197834 A1). Filed 2020-12-31.
Shaker, George (2021). System and method for glucose sensing using millimeter wave radar (US 20210004620 A1). Filed 2020-09-21.
Stetter, Joseph R. et al. (2016). Wirelss near-field gas sensor system and methods of manufacturing the same (US 20160349205 A1). Filed 2016-05-26.
Tomasino, Alessandro et al. (2025). Method and system for time-domain integration of broadband terahertz pulses (US 12321048 B2). Filed 2021-09-02.
Wedage et al., "Climate Change Sensing Through Terahertz Communication Infrastructure: A Disruptive Application of 6G Networks," Oct. 2021, retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.03074.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights