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 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 1-20 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 claims 1 and 11, applicant discloses the steps of “analyze a pattern of signals based on signals received from the first RX and the second RX, and transmit information related to the analyzed pattern of signals to at least one processor…”. However, the limitation lacks detail information about “a pattern of signals”, i.e., what is the basic factor when considering pattern, such as pre-decide threshold for signal? Or it’s based on any other criteria?
Then the limitation is directed to “perform a designated operation based on the information related to the pattern of signals from the communication module.” Because no more details of “a pattern of signals” has been disclosed, so it’s unclear about the meaning of “the information related to the pattern of signals” as well, i.e., it is summarized information about the pattern of the signals, or it is a comparison?
Furthermore, the limitation of “a designated operation” is general terms which lack specific meaning in the claims, could be broadly interpreted as any operable action. Following art rejection will be based on the discussion above.
In claims 3 and 13, applicant discloses “to analyze a pattern of signals, in signals received from the first RX and the second RX, based on a result based on a real part, an imaginary part, and/or an absolute part of a channel impulse response (CIR).” The terms “real part”, “imaginary part” and “absolute part” are directed to a complex number, but these two claims and the claims they depend on never disclosed the step of calculating value or equation, except mention “a channel impulse response”, but it’s still unclear how to obtain those values?
In claims 4 and 14,
It’s unclear whether “a pattern of signals” refers to “a pattern of signals” in claims 1 and 11. If they are the same item, should use “the” instead of “a” in the sentence.
Applicant discloses “based on a value that removes a clutter”, it’s unclear the meaning of this limitation, i.e., how could “a value” act on removing items.
It’s unclear whether noise will be removed since the limitation read as “based on a value that removes a clutter, including noise.”
The last limitation reads as “from a result based on a real part, an imaginary part, and/or an absolute part of a channel impulse response (CIR).” However, it is not clear about how to obtain “a result” from “real part”, “imaginary part” and “absolute part”, which obviously are directed to complex number? Also, it’s unclear whether the analyst is implemented for the signals received from RXs and “a result” based on the value from CIR as well. On the other words, the relationship among difference terms have not been clearly identified.
In claims 5 and 15, applicant discloses “to transmit information related to the analyzed signals to
at least one processor in response to a pattern of the analyzed signals corresponding to a designated
pattern.” It’s not clear about what “a designated pattern” refers to.
claims 8 and 18, recites the limitation " wherein the designated pattern includes a pattern in which a peak….", there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US Patent 11,018,741 B2).
Regarding clam 1, Huang teaches the invention as disclosed including an electronic device [Fig. 3] comprising:
a first antenna, a second antenna, and a third antenna [41, 42, 46, Fig 7-8; col. 7, line 61-col. 8, line 25];
a communication module comprising communication circuitry connected to the antennas and including a first receive port (RX) and a second RX [41, 42, 43, Fig, 5-7; col. 7 line 45 – col. 8, line 3];
and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry [901, Fig. 9],
wherein the communication module is configured to analyze a pattern of signals based on signals received from the first RX and the second RX, and transmit information related to the analyzed pattern of signals to at least one processor [col. 8. Line 27-col. 9, line 13;],
and wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to perform a designated operation based on the information related to the pattern of signals from the communication module [col. 9, line 14-51].
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses the communication module is configured to transmit information related to the analyzed signals to at least one processor in response to a pattern of the analyzed signals corresponding to a designated pattern [col. 5, line 45 – col. 6, line 24].
Regarding to claim 10, Huang discloses the communication module further includes a third RX, wherein the first RX is connected to a first antenna, the second RX is connected to a second antenna, and the third RX is connected to a third antenna [41, 42, 46, Fig 7-8; col. 7, line 61-col. 8, line 26]; and wherein the communication module is configured to analyze a pattern of signals based on signals received from the first RX, the second RX, and the third RX [col. 7, line 61-col. 8, line 26].
Regarding claims 11, 15 and 20, since they are method claims of claims 1 and 5, they are rejected under the same basis as claims 1, 5 and 10 set forth above.
Status of claims
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 12-14 and 16-19 have not been rejected under prior art reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINSONG HU whose telephone number is (571) 272- 3965. The examiner can normally be reached at 7AM-5PM M-TH.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.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.
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights