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 .
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 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.
1. 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.
2. 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 power conversion and distribution module configured to provide one or more selected voltages”.
The claim term “module” in the above claim(s) is a generic place holder because is not preceded by any structural modifier and is .
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.
3. 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
I. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 and 8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically:
4.1. Claims 1 and 8 recites the elements “power conversion and distribution module”, which is indefinite because the specifications, claims and/or drawings fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform the function relative to providing “one or more selected voltages”. Furthermore, Fig. 2 simply depict empty boxes with indicating of said “voltage conversion and power distribution module,” which have not any structure to perform said function(s).
4.2. Furthermore, claims 2-6 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim 1.
4.3. Claim 3 recites the limitations “the level of (RF) spectra transmissions” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
II. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 are/is 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. The aforesaid claim implements a new subject matter that is not described in the specifications. Specifically:
5.1. Claims 1 and 8 recite the element “power conversion and distribution module” where no structure for these specific limitations is disclosed in the applicant’s specification, therefore, claim 1 and 8 is rejected for no written description in the specification.
5.2. Furthermore, such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function(s) and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention pursuant to MPEP 2163.03 Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises, VI. INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF A MEANS- (OR STEP-) PLUS-FUNCTION LIMITATION.
5.3. Furthermore, claims 2-6 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim 1.
Examiner’s Note
6. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 12 and 13 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BRANT et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0313877 hereinafter mentioned “Brant”).
As per claim 1, Brant discloses:
A spectrum analysis apparatus (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use) comprising:
a handheld enclosure (Figs. 2 and/or 5, see the housing 201. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1) including:
a processor (Fig. 5, see one of the processors of the FPGA/CPU 516. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1);
a spectrum analyzer module (see [0018]-[0020], [0287]-[0292], and/or claim-1. The unit/module of Brant that analyzes the electromagnetic spectrum) communicatively coupled to the processor (Fig. 5, see one of the processors of the FPGA/CPU 516. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1) and configured to provide one or more radio frequency RF spectra data to the processor (see [0018]-[0020], [0287]-[0292], and/or claim-1);
a selectively attachable radio frequency RF antenna coupled to spectrum analyzer and configured to be selectively attached to the handheld enclosure (see [0258], and/or claim-1);
a display device (Figs. 2 and/or 5, see the unnumbered display or graphical display 530. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-6) configured to display electromagnetic spectrum information derived from the spectrum analyzer module (see [0018]-[0020], [0287]-[0292], and/or claim-1);
a power conversion and distribution module configured to provide one or more selected voltages to the processor and spectrum analyzer module (Fig. 5, see the chargeable or non-chargeable battery 560. Also see [0275]); and
a battery adapter apparatus coupled to the enclosure and communicatively coupled to the power conversion and distribution module and configured to communicatively couple with any of a plurality of standard batteries (Fig. 5, the implicit receptacle of the housing 201 where the chargeable or non-chargeable battery 560 is connected/mounted, which is couple to the implicit plurality of battery-cells. Also see [0275]).
As per claim 2, Brant discloses the spectrum analysis apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
a GPS receiver/antenna configured to provide geographic data (see [0257]) to the processor (Fig. 5, see one of the processors of the FPGA/CPU 516. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1).
As per claim 5, Brant discloses the spectrum analysis apparatus of claim 2 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
the processor (Fig. 5, see one of the processors of the FPGA/CPU 516. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1) coupled with a memory device (Fig. 5, see the memory block 538 and/or 518. Also see [0274] and/or claim-1) that is configured to store at least one or the one or more radio frequency RF spectra data and the geographic data (see [0257]. The data generated by the GPS receiver).
As per claim 6, Brant discloses the spectrum analysis apparatus of claim 2 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
an input/output port configured to couple to a data or communications network and download the stored (see [0257]. The implicit port of the remotely wired or wireless network) at least one or the one or more radio frequency RF spectra data and the geographic data (see [0257]. The data generated by the GPS receiver).
As per claim 7, Brant discloses:
A portable spectrum analysis device (Fig. 5, see hand-held apparatus 200. Also see [0257] and/or claim-1) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 5, see one of the processors of the FPGA/CPU 516. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1);
a selectively attachable radio frequency RF antenna (see [0258], and/or claim-1) and configured to selectively attach to a handheld enclosure (Figs. 2 and/or 5, see the housing 201. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1);
a spectrum analyzer (see [0018]-[0020], [0287]-[0292], and/or claim-1. The unit/module of Brant that analyzes the electromagnetic spectrum) communicatively coupled to the selectively attachable RF antenna (see [0258], and/or claim-1) and the processor (Fig. 5, see one of the processors of the FPGA/CPU 516. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1), the spectrum analyzer configured to determine one or more radio frequency RF spectra data based on RF signals received with the selectively attachable radio RF antenna and provide the one or more RF spectra data to the processor for processing into electromagnetic spectrum information (see [0018]-[0020], [0287]-[0292], and/or claim-1); and
a display (Figs. 2 and/or 5, see the unnumbered display or graphical display 530. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-6) disposed in an outer surface of the handheld enclosure (Figs. 2 and/or 5, see the housing 201. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1) for displaying the electromagnetic spectrum information to a user of the device (see [0257], [0275] and/or claim-1).
As per claim 8, Brant discloses the portable spectrum analysis device of claim 7 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
a power conversion and distribution module configured to provide one or more selected voltages to the processor and spectrum analyzer module (Fig. 5, see the chargeable or non-chargeable battery 560. Also see [0275]); and
a battery adapter apparatus disposed on the handheld enclosure and communicatively coupled to the power conversion and distribution module and configured to communicatively couple with any of a plurality of standard batteries (Fig. 5, the implicit receptacle of the housing 201 where the chargeable or non-chargeable battery 560 is connected/mounted, which is couple to the implicit plurality of battery-cells. Also see [0275]).
As per claim 9, Brant discloses the portable spectrum analysis device of claim 7 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
a GPS receiver/antenna configured to provide geographic data (see [0257]. The data generated by the GPS receiver) to the processor (Fig. 5, see one of the processors of the FPGA/CPU 516. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1).
As per claim 12, Brant discloses the portable spectrum analysis device of claim 9 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
a memory device (Fig. 5, see the memory block 538 and/or 518. Also see [0274] and/or claim-1) communicatively coupled with the processor (Fig. 5, see one of the processors of the FPGA/CPU 516. Also see [0257], [0274] and/or claim-1) for storing at least one or the one or more radio frequency (RF) spectra data and the geographic data (see [0257]. The data generated by the GPS receiver).
As per claim 13, Brant discloses the portable spectrum analysis device of claim 9 as described above.
Brant further discloses:
an input/output port configured to couple to a data or communications network and download the stored (see [0257]. The implicit port of the remotely wired or wireless network) at least one or the one or more radio frequency RF spectra data and the geographic data (see [0257]. The data generated by the GPS receiver).
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim(s) 4 and 11 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brant in view of Watson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0052811 hereinafter mentioned as “Watson”).
As per claim 4, Brant discloses the spectrum analysis apparatus of claim 1 with the spectrum analyzer module as described above but does not explicitly disclose that it comprises a software defined radio SDR.
However, Watson further discloses:
wherein the spectrum analyzer module comprises a software defined radio SDR (see [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “second state provides for a higher current state than the first state” disclosed by Watson into Brant, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by automatically tuning the transceiver to the correct frequency of interest and receiving the raw streamed data from the transceiver and performing statistical analysis, such as a Fourier transform, on the data and outputs this data into arrays or other appropriate data structures (Watson, Paragraph [0039]).
Furthermore, Brant states that “It is therefore intended that all matters in the foregoing description and shown in the accompanying drawings be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense. It will be understood that variations, modifications, equivalents and substitutions for components of the specifically described exemplary embodiments of the subject matter may be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the subject matter” (Brant, Paragraph [0501]).
Furthermore, Watson states that “It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that various modifications and variation can be made in the present invention without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention” (Watson, Paragraph [0050]).
As per claim 11, Brant discloses the portable spectrum analysis device of claim 7 with the spectrum analyzer module as described above but does not explicitly disclose that it comprises a software defined radio SDR.
However, Watson further discloses:
wherein the spectrum analyzer module comprises a software defined radio SDR (see [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “second state provides for a higher current state than the first state” disclosed by Watson into Brant, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by automatically tuning the transceiver to the correct frequency of interest and receiving the raw streamed data from the transceiver and performing statistical analysis, such as a Fourier transform, on the data and outputs this data into arrays or other appropriate data structures (Watson, Paragraph [0039]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim(s) 3 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and if further rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons why said claim(s) would be allowable:
11. Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
the processor configured to process the one or more radio frequency RF spectra data and display the spectra data in a mode using at least one progress bar and a plurality of colors within the at least one progress bar to visually indicate the level of (RF) spectra transmissions for each of the one or more radio frequency (RF) spectra.
12. Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
the processor configured to process the one or more radio frequency RF spectra data and display the spectra data in a mode using at least one progress bar and a plurality of colors within the at least one progress bar to visually indicate the respective level of (RF) spectra transmissions for each of the one or more radio frequency (RF) spectra.
13. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, signal processing and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858