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 .
The preliminary amendment filed 10/4/24 has been entered.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered by the examiner.
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: “wireless modules” in claims 1-8 and in particular, each independent claim.
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 § 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 3-5 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 claim 3, a transitional phrase such as comprising is missing in the claim which renders the scope of the claim uncertain and indefinite. In addition, the limitation “the control circuit” (penultimate line) lacks an antecedent basis.
The dependent claims 4-5 fall in view of claim 3.
For purposes of applying prior art, the above identified vague and indefinite claim limitations are interpreted to read on the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al., US 2017/0325115, (“Matsumoto”), in view of Chisci et al., US 2024/0155674, (“Chisci”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches “A wireless communication device (Fig. 5, eNB 200) comprising:
a plurality of wireless modules (Fig. 5, transmitter 210, receiver 220); and
a control circuit (Fig. 5, controller 230), wherein:
the wireless modules perform
wireless communication (paragraph nos. 0090, 0091),
monitoring a total transmission time of the wireless communication per certain observation period (Fig. 14C shows a “total transmission time” (channel occupancy time/transmission time) per certain “observation period” (LBT)), and
limiting the wireless communication when the total transmission time reaches a certain time (Fig. 14C, transmission stops when the channel occupancy time expires; see paragraph no. 0185, “On the other hand, when a predetermined amount of reception power (interference power) or more is not detected in the LBT period, the eNB 200 determines that the corresponding channel is free (clear) and performs transmission using the channel only in a predetermined period (channel occupancy time). For example, the channel occupancy time is in a range of 1 [ms] to 10 [ms]. The eNB 200 does not perform transmission in an idle period after the channel occupancy time elapses”); and
the control circuit performs determining a different start timing of the observation period for wireless module” (Fig. 14C, the start timing of the LBT period is changed – see paragraph nos. 0205, 0206 and in particular, 0205, “In the situation illustrated in FIGS. 14A and 14B, the controller 230 of the eNB 200A advances the start timing of the LBT period of the eNB 200A by a predetermined time as illustrated in FIG. 14C. The predetermined time is the time length of the LBT period or more”).
While Matsumoto teaches “determining a different start timing of the observation period” for a wireless module, it does not teach this determination “for each wireless module” as recited in claim 1 since the claim requires a “plurality of wireless modules.”
Chisci teaches that a base station may have a plurality of receiver (RX) modules 318, see Fig. 3 and base station 310. The base station is also configured to perform LBT and to transmit DL data during a channel occupancy time, see paragraph no. 0037.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Matsumoto by including a plurality of RX modules and advancing the start timing of the LBT period of each RX module as taught by Chisci to enable the base station to perform communications using MIMO.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches “wherein: the wireless modules include two wireless modules” (see Fig. 5) but does not teach “the start timing of the observation period of one wireless module is a timing at which 1/2 of the observation period of the other wireless module has elapsed.” Matsumoto does teach that the wireless module (RX module of eNB200B) of a second eNB200B delays the beginning of its LBT period by one-half of the LBT period of the first eNB200A, see paragraph no. 0205. The first and second eNBs are separate wireless communication devices and not a single wireless communication device as required by claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Matsumoto and Chisci by delaying the start timing of the LBT period of a second RX module by one-half of the LBT period of the first RX module to reduce the interference between the LBT operations of each RX module, as suggested by Matsumoto in paragraph no. 0205.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al., US 2017/0325115, (“Matsumoto”).
Regarding independent claim 3, Matsumoto teaches “A wireless communication method wherein:
a plurality of wireless modules (Fig. 5, transmitter 210 and receiver 220) performs
performing wireless communication (paragraph nos. 0090, 0091),
monitoring a total transmission time of the wireless communication per certain observation period (Fig. 14C shows a “total transmission time” (channel occupancy time/transmission time) per certain “observation period” (LBT)), and
limiting the wireless communication when the total transmission time reaches a certain time (Fig. 14C, transmission stops when the channel occupancy time expires; see paragraph no. 0185, “On the other hand, when a predetermined amount of reception power (interference power) or more is not detected in the LBT period, the eNB 200 determines that the corresponding channel is free (clear) and performs transmission using the channel only in a predetermined period (channel occupancy time). For example, the channel occupancy time is in a range of 1 [ms] to 10 [ms]. The eNB 200 does not perform transmission in an idle period after the channel occupancy time elapses”); and
the control circuit performs determining a start timing of the observation period” (Fig. 14C, the start timing of the LBT period is changed – see paragraph nos. 0205, 0206 and in particular, 0205, “In the situation illustrated in FIGS. 14A and 14B, the controller 230 of the eNB 200A advances the start timing of the LBT period of the eNB 200A by a predetermined time as illustrated in FIG. 14C. The predetermined time is the time length of the LBT period or more”).
Regarding independent claim 6, this independent claim is a corresponding apparatus claim of the method claim 3 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 3 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Matsumoto teaches “wherein: the wireless modules include two wireless modules; and the start timing of the observation period of one wireless module is a timing at which 1/2 of the observation period of the other wireless module has elapsed” (eNB200A includes a RX module/receiver 220 and eNB200B includes a RX module/receiver 220 (see Figs. 14A, 14B), hence teaching “two wireless modules”; the wireless module (RX module/receiver of eNB200B) of a second eNB200B delays the beginning of its LBT period by one-half of the LBT period of the first eNB200A, see paragraph no. 0205).
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Matsumoto teaches “wherein the start timing of the observation period is determined to be different for each wireless module” (the start timing of the LBT for eNB200A is different from the start timing of the LBT for eNB200B (see Figs. 14C and 14B) and appears to implicitly teach the associated limitation “included in a same terminal group” (the eNB200A would appear to implicitly serve a first same group of terminals within its cell and the eNB200B would appear to implicitly serve a second same group of terminals within its cell).
However, assuming arguendo that Matsumoto does not implicitly teach the limitation “included in a same terminal group” as recited in claims 5 and 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Matsumoto by having each eNB serve a same group of terminals since this allows the cells to be sufficiently large to minimize interference between the two cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights