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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 25 and 32 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.
For Claims 25 and 32, “specific to a MCS” should probably be corrected to ---specific to a respective MCS---.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 19, 23, 27, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US 2024/0276224).
For Claims 19, 27, and 34, Wei teaches a method, means, and an apparatus comprising at least one processing core and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processing core (see paragraphs 28, 29), cause the apparatus at least to:
perform a performance test involving demodulation of input signals by a user equipment, the test comprising a sequence of consecutive time intervals and the test comprising providing to a first receive chain of the user equipment a first wireless input signal and providing to a second receive chain of the user equipment a second wireless input signal (see paragraphs 82, 84, 85), and
update the first and second wireless input signals for each time interval, the updating comprising updating a power level of the first and second wireless input signals and, responsive to a determination that a modulation and coding scheme, MCS, update condition is fulfilled, the updating also comprises updating the MCS of at least one of the first or the second wireless input signal (see paragraphs 82, 84, 85).
For Claim 23, Wei teaches the apparatus, further configured to provide the first wireless input signal at a higher power than the second wireless input signal (see paragraph 111).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2024/0276224) as applied to claims 19 and 27 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0126733).
For Claims 20 and 28, Wei as applied above is not explicit as to, but Chen teaches the apparatus, wherein the MCS update condition comprises at least one of the following: a simulated reference signal received power level crosses a threshold level, or a simulated position of the user equipment in the test passes a threshold distance from a simulated fixed transmitter (see paragraphs 39, 43).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a threshold comparison as in Chen when implementing the method of Wei. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using a known method to adjust a known parameter.
Claim(s) 21 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2024/0276224) as applied to claims 19 and 27 above, and further in view of Burchardt et al. (US 2014/0113644).
For Claims 21 and 29, Wei as applied above is not explicit as to, but Burchardt teaches the apparatus, further configured to update, for each time interval, a fading profile of the first and second wireless input signals (see paragraph 57, claim 13).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to update fading profiles as in Burchardt when implementing the method of Wei, the motivation would be to allow for optimizations in the next timeslot.
Claim(s) 22 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2024/0276224) as applied to claims 19 and 27 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0077655, hereinafter Chen ‘655).
For Claims 22 and 30, Wei as applied above is not explicit as to, but in a similar field of endeavor, Chen ‘655 teaches the apparatus, further configured to update, for each time interval, a transmission frequency of the first and second wireless input signals (see paragraphs 7, 9).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to update frequencies as in Chen ‘655 when implementing the method of Wei. The motivation would be to allow for optimization in the next timeslot.
Claim(s) 24 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2024/0276224) as applied to claims 19 and 27 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2010/0190451).
For Claims 24 and 31, Wei as applied above is not explicit as to, but Huber teaches the apparatus, further configured to include in the test of demodulation performance at least one simulated change of attachment of the user equipment from a first transmission reception point, TRP, to a second TRP (see paragraph 29).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to simulate handover as in Huber when employing the method of Wei. The motivation would be to determine device behaviors under known operating conditions.
Claim(s) 25 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2024/0276224) as applied to claims 19 and 27 above, and further in view of Song et al. (US 2004/0264588).
For Claims 25 and 32, Wei as applied above is not explicit as to, but Song teaches the apparatus, further configured to determine whether the user equipment passes the test of demodulation performance based on comparing at least two achieved throughputs to at least two threshold throughputs, wherein each threshold throughput is specific to a MCS (see paragraphs 24, 32, 52, 64, 66).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use throughput as in Song when evaluating MCS as in Wei. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of optimizing parameters to ensure a desired performance.
Claim(s) 26, 33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2024/0276224) as applied to claims 19, 27, and 34 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 2023/0055553).
For Claims 26, 33,and 35, Wei as applied above Is not explicit as to, but Jiang teaches the apparatus, wherein, for at least one of the time intervals, the apparatus is configured to provide the first wireless input signal with a different MCS than the second wireless input signal (see paragraphs 6, 36, 188).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to monitor multiple MCSs and channel properties as in Jiang when making determinations about parameters as in Wei. The motivation would be to determine parameters that improve device performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Venugopal et al. (US 2019/0334603) teaches a system for simultaneous monitoring of multiple beams. Breslin et al. (US 2015/0071335) teaches a system for monitoring multiple receive chains. Karri et al. (US 2015/0271755) teaches a method for a UE to adjust MCS for multiple receive chains.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights