DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of June 7, 2024.
The text of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(1) is as follows:
“(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of "canceled" or "not entered" may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.” (Bold added).
The preliminary amendment of June 7, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c)(1) in that page 4 of the claim listing contains remarks about the drawings after claim 12. Please, also, see MPEP 608.01(m) at the second sentence of the first paragraph. Nevertheless, the amendment has been ENTERED.
The substitute specification has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claim 12 does not end in a period. MPEP 608.01(m) in the first paragraph states, “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.” This omission is presumed to be a typographical error, and, this must be corrected in the period for response to this office action.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The set of replacement drawings is hereby APPROVED, and, the drawings are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-12 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.
In independent claim 1 and in independent claim 6, it is unclear in context what an “element” is. Is this an antenna element?
In each of dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 11, the uses of the term, “rectangular signal” are unclear in context. Is this a square wave signal?
On line 2 of dependent claim 2, “the phase signal” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “a phase signal” in either claim 2 or claim 1.
On line 2 of dependent claim 3, “the standard-deviation signal” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “a standard-deviation signal: in either claim 3 or claim 1.
On line 2 of dependent claim 7, “the phase signal” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “a phase signal” in either claim 7 or claim 6.
On line 3 of dependent claim 7, “the standard-deviation signal” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “a standard-deviation signal: in either claim 7 or claim 6.
In dependent claim 11, “the standard-deviation signal” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “a standard-deviation signal: in either claim 11 or claim 2 or claim 1.
In each of claims 1, 6-11, and 12, each use of the term, “module” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether a hardware module or a software module is meant. For purposes of examination , it is presumed that a hardware module is meant.
Due to the lack of a period at the end of claim 12, it is unclear if text of the claim is missing.
On line 1 of independent claim 1, “the distance” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “a distance.”
On line 1 of independent claim 6, “the distance” lacks antecedent basis in that there is no earlier recitation of “a distance.”
Each of dependent claims 2-5 and 11 is unclear, at least, in that they depend from unclear, independent claim 1.
Each of dependent claims 7-10 and 12 is unclear, at least, in that they depend from unclear, independent claim 6.
Non-Statutory Subject Matter Response
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “A method for estimating the distance of an element …” (claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 and 11); “A non-transitory computer program product …” (claim 5, implementing the method of claims 1, 2-4, and 11); and, “A detection module for estimating the distance of an element …” (claims 6-10 and 12). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no use is made of the results of the computations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because: (1) in claim 1, the “transmitting …” and “receiving …” steps are merely information gathering; in claim 5, the ”non-transitory computer program product” (i.e. the medium) merely holds the “program code instructions” to implement the “method”; in claim 6, the “detection module” is merely generic computer hardware; and, claims 2-4 and 6-12 merely further describe the judicial exception/abstract idea.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parr et al (‘221) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the plurality of channels and to the channel estimator.
Each of Zhang et al (‘774) and Zhang et al (‘775) is of general interest for the disclosure related to channel impulse response.
Lee et al (‘714) is of general interest for the disclosure related to channel impulse response and to the noise immunity threshold.
Tertinek et al (‘774) is of general interest for the disclosure related to channel impulse response (CIR) and to CIR phase.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648