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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “antenna remover” and the “extrapolated antenna installer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that the block diagram depicted in Figure 1 is insufficient with respect to devices that can remove and install antennas, as claimed. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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: “antenna remover” and “extrapolated antenna installer” in at least claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “antenna remover” and “extrapolated antenna installer” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For example, in paras. [0046-0051], the antenna remover is described at a high level of abstraction as being able to remove both real and virtual antennas. Furthermore, the extrapolated antenna installer 130 is only mentioned in para. [0054] as “installing an extrapolated antenna within a predetermined second distance from an antenna that is not removed among the plurality of antennas” which is essentially the claim language verbatim and is insufficient to serve as structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, as required. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “a virtual antenna generator generating a virtual antenna between antennas included in a plurality of antennas” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear if this limitation is supposed to be a structural limitation, a functional limitation, or a method step of generating a virtual antenna. Whether, and to what extent, a method step serves to further limit an apparatus claim is unclear. Claim limitations in an apparatus claim should be clearly phrases as structural or functional limitations in order to ensure clarity and comprehension. Subsequent limitations in claim 1 including “an antenna remover determining a phase difference…determining a reliability…and removing at least one antenna” and “an extrapolated antenna installer installing an extrapolated antenna” are likewise rejected. Second, given that the plurality of antennas are not positively claimed elements of the invention, and so lie outside the scope of the invention, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, the plurality of antennas are necessarily present when the virtual antenna generator is operating. In other words, how can the virtual antenna generator function as claimed if there are not a plurality of antennas to work with? In general, apparatus claims must be infringeable without requiring actual operation, i.e., while still “in the box.” Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a virtual antenna generator generating a virtual antenna between antennas included in a plurality of antennas positioned within a preset first distance from a first antenna” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear to state that a virtual object is placed “between” to real objects without some frame of reference for how the virtual antenna and the real antennas are considered or viewed together, i.e., a monitor, a screen, a sensor readout, etc. Second, it is unclear whether or not the “first antenna” is one of the “plurality of antennas.” Claim 10 is likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “an antenna remover determining a phase difference between the antennas included in the plurality of antennas, determining a reliability indicating a performance of the virtual antenna based on the phase difference, and removing at least one antenna among the plurality of antennas based on the reliability” which is indefinite for four reasons. First, it is unclear how the antenna remover can operate to “determine a phase difference between the antennas” unless the antennas are actively operating. However, no active operation of said antennas is actually required by the claim. Second, it is unclear which antenna would be “removed” if all of the antennas are judged to have the same amount of reliability. Third, it is unclear if the claim recitation encompasses devices that can physically switch antennas off, or whether it is more a particular computer program/processor that can electronically operate antennas. Fourth, it is unclear what it means to remove an antenna “based on the reliability” of the virtual antenna, since the reliability of the virtual antenna alone does not necessarily inform which of the antennas needs to be removed. Claim 10 is likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “determining a reliability indicating a performance of the virtual antenna based on the phase difference” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the phase difference between the antennas relates to the reliability of the virtual antenna. The characteristics and operation of the virtual antenna appear to be wholly related to the virtual antenna generator and are otherwise not claimed as being related to the operation of the antennas. Therefore, there is no clear link between the operation of the virtual antennas and the operation of the plurality of antennas, claimed or otherwise. Claim 10 is likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “an extrapolated antenna installer installing an extrapolated antenna within a preset second distance from an unremoved antenna among the plurality of antennas” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether or not the extrapolated antenna installer is installing a real antenna or a virtual antenna. Second, given that the fact that the plurality of antennas are outside the scope of the claimed invention, it is indefinite to claim the position of an element of the invention relative to something that is outside the scope of the invention. Claim 10 is likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of antennas are positioned a third distance away from the first antenna in an upper, lower, left, or right direction of the first antenna” which is indefinite, because the plurality of antennas are outside the scope of the claim, and therefore their relative positions are likewise outside the scope of the claim. Claim 9 is likewise rejected.
Claim 4 recites “wherein when there is one virtual antenna having the lowest reliability, the antenna remover removes two antennas involved in generation of the virtual antenna having the lowest reliability” which is indefinite, because the claim requires at least two virtual antennas. However, the virtual antennas themselves are outside the scope of the invention, being an apparatus claim that cannot logically include virtual objects. Therefore, there are not necessarily at least two virtual antennas present. Dependent claim 5 fails to cure the deficiency. Claims 13-14 are likewise rejected.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the plurality of antennas are positioned a third distance away from the first antenna in an upper, lower, left, or right direction of the first antenna” which is indefinite for two reason. First, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, said limitation either serves as an additional method step or serves to further limit a previously recited method step. Instead, the limitation appears to be aimed to describing the locations of the plurality of antennas relative to the first antenna, so as to be unrelated to generating the virtual antenna in a location relative to the plurality of antennas. Second, the phrasing of “positioned a third distance away from the first antenna in an upper, lower, left, or right direction of the first antenna” is both unclear in terms of the frame of reference, and also seems to imply that all of the plurality of antennas are positioned at the exact same spot relative to the first antenna, which is illogical. Dependent claims 12-14 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 15 recites “wherein removing at least one antenna removes all virtual antennas after removing at least one antenna among the plurality of antennas” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how removing, or turning off, an antenna serves to automatically remove all virtual antennas.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 571-270-5144. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights