Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/874,371 filed on December 12, 2024. Claims 12-13 have been cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 14-15 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-11 and 14-15 are subject to examination.
Claim Objections/Suggestions
3. Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, “one input sample” (line 5) should be replaced with “one input sample of the input samples” and “concerned input sample,” (line 13) should be replaced with “concerned input sample, and”;
in claim 4, “Finite Impulse Response filter, FIR filter, wherein” (line 3) should be replaced with “Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter, and wherein”;
in claim 5, “concerned sub-filter,” (line 5) should be replaced with “concerned sub-filter, and” and “the largest” (line 6) should be replaced with “a largest”;
in claim 6, “the largest coefficient in absolute value” (line 2) should be replaced with “a largest coefficient in an absolute value”, “computed, wherein” (line 3) should be replaced with “computed, and wherein”, “the input sample” (line 4) should be replaced with “the at least one input sample”, “computed;” (line 5) should be replaced with “computed; and” and “in absolute value” (line 7) should be replaced with “in the absolute value”;
in claim 8, “steps includes” (line 2) should be replaced with “steps include”, “samples, wherein” (line 6) should be replaced with “samples, and wherein the”, and “sample,” (line 12) should be replaced with “sample, and”;
in claim 9, “step, wherein” (line 2) should be replaced with “step, and wherein” and “steps includes” (lines 2-3) should be replaced with “steps include”;
in claim 14, “method comprising” (line 1) should be replaced with “method comprising:”, “one input sample” (line 4) should be replaced with “one input sample of the input samples”, “subsequent device;” (line 8) should be replaced with “subsequent device; and” and “concerned input sample,” (line 12) should be replaced with “concerned input sample, and”; and
in claim 15, “one input sample” (line 5) should be replaced with “one input sample of the input samples”, “subsequent device;” (line 9) should be replaced with “subsequent device; and” and “concerned input sample,” (line 13) should be replaced with “concerned input sample, and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
4. 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.
5. 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: “input samples of a signal to be processed by a subsequent device” in claims 1 and 14-15.
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 § 101
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101 that forms the basis for all patent non-eligibility rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action:
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In regard to the non-statutory subject matter, the claimed invention is directed to a computer program comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, causes a device to perform, construed and considered to include embodiments covering software per se. The claimed invention being directed to an embodiment covering only software is considered non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-11 and 14-15 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.
Claim 1 recites limitations “input samples” (line 3) and “input samples” (line 8). It is not clear whether said “input samples” (line 8) is different from or the same as said “input samples” as recited in line 3. In addition, claim 1 recites limitations “the concerned input sample” (line 8) and “the intersample behavior” (line 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Hence, renders claim 1 and its dependent claims indefinite. Similar rejection applies to claims 14-15.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the concerned sub-filter" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites limitations “the previous limiting step” (lines 6-7) and “the concerned intermediate sample” (line 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Reason for Allowance
9. Kawasaki (US 2012/0328048 A1) teaches in Figure 7 a device for performing processing steps (12) and in Figure 8 receiving input samples (W11) and clipping input samples (W12), performing a limiting step (W12), generating predicted intersample values (W13) and replacing the concerned input sample (W13). Jelonnek (US 2007/0063769 A1) teaches in Figure 3 sub-filters. Jelonnek (US 2007/0036251 A1) teaches in Figure 2A an interpolation filter.
However, with regard to claims 1 and 14-15, the prior art of record fails to disclose said subsequent device (Figures 1A-3B) as claimed in “combination” with “the corresponding structure, material or act described in the Applicant’s specification as performing the entire claimed function and [or] equivalents thereof” where applicable under 35 U.S.C 112(f).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SHAWKAT M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1639. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:30AM-3:30PM ET.
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 AIR at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, SAM K. AHN can be reached on (571) 272-3044. 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.
/SHAWKAT M ALI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights