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 .
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 11-24 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 8 “ADC” should read --analog-to-digital converter (ADC)—
Claim 15 line 4 “ADCs” should read --analog-to-digital converters (ADCs)--
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.
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:
Claim 15 lines 7-15 a computer system configured … the antennas.
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 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.
Claims 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claims invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fail to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 11-24 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 reference to claim 1
The terms “N, “P”, “K” renders the claim indefinite because the terms are not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes N is a positive integer greater than 1.
In reference to claim 2
The terms “N and “K” renders the claim indefinite because the terms are not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 4
The term “P” renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 7
The term “N” renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 8
The terms “MSEmin”, “b” “K”, and “M” renders the claim indefinite because the terms are not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 12
The term “MSEmin” renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 13
The term “MSEmin” renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 15
The terms “N, “K”, “M” renders the claim indefinite because the terms are not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes N is a positive integer greater than 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the antenna receiver" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claim 16
The terms “N”, “P”, “b”, “K” and “M” renders the claim indefinite because the terms are not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 17
The term “MSEmin” renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 19
The language " The signal recovery optimizer according to claim 18, configured and operable to iteratively determine the optimized sparsity level via iterative tuning of said sparsity level" in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite because the language describes the function or operation of the signal recovery optimizer instead of defining the structure that makes up the device as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Consequently, the structure of the signal recovery optimizer device is unclear. The structure which goes to make up the signal recovery optimizer must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
In reference to claim 21
The term “MSEmin” renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 23
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the operation data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The language "The signal recovery optimizer according to claim 15, configured and operable to connect to the antenna receiver to perform a learning session and determine the operational data." in lines 1-3 renders the claim indefinite because the language describes the function or operation of the signal recovery optimizer instead of defining the structure that makes up the device as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Consequently, the structure of the signal recovery optimizer device is unclear. The structure which goes to make up the signal recovery optimizer must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
In reference to claim 24
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the operation data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The language "The signal recovery optimizer according to claim 15, configured and operable for communication with a control unit of the antenna receiver to communicate the operational data to be stored in the control unit." in lines 1-3 renders the claim indefinite because the language describes the function or operation of the signal recovery optimizer instead of defining the structure that makes up the device as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Consequently, the structure of the signal recovery optimizer device is unclear. The structure which goes to make up the signal recovery optimizer must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
In reference to claims 5, 11, 14, 18, 20, and 22
Claims 5, 11, 14, 18, 20, and 22 are rejected because they depend on a rejected parent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 2020/0343948 pertains to rid beamforming for single user multiple-input multiple-output (SU MIMO) communications and for multi-user multiple-input single-output (MU MISO) communications. The radio frequency (RF) precoder and baseband precoder are determined such that the hybrid precoder has a minimum or near minimum chordal distance from an optimal precoder. Feedback information enables the transmitter to select columns from a set of discrete Fourier transform (DFT) columns to form the RF precoder matrix.
US 2023/0300006 pertains to A machine learning based method for channel estimation for a multiple-input multiple-output, MIMO, system, the method including receiving a measured signal y[k] at a receiver of the system; finding subcarriers k of the measured signal y[k]; estimating, with a convolutional neural network, CNN, channel amplitudes ĝ[k] of the measured signal y[k]; reconstructing a channel Ĥ[k], between the receiver and a transmitter of the system, based on the channel amplitudes ĝ[k] and a low resolution whiten measurement matrix Y.sub.w; and adjusting a parameter of the system based on the reconstructed channel Ĥ[k]. The channel amplitudes ĝ[k] are simultaneously estimated by the CNN.
US 2022/0190888 pertains to MIMO transmitters, receivers and transceivers implemented as modules of relay devices for signals transmitted to and/or from base-stations and/or mobile-stations, in particular when such devices are implemented on mobile and/or aerial vehicles, and in particular for transmitting, receiving and/or forwarding wireless communication signals at frequencies in what is termed the “millimeter-wave band”. In such devices, a power control unit is configured to determine an energy availability measure and/or a power demand measure and, in response, cause a switching unit to connect a plurality of RF chains to a plurality of antenna elements in different states.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights