DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2024-10-23 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-20 are pending for consideration.
35 USC §112(f) - 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.
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.
The identified claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 1 and 2-8
a first generation component configured to generate a carrier
generic holder: a first generation component
functional language: configured to generate a carrier...
a second generation component configured to generate a cancel
generic holder: a second generation component
functional language: configured to generate a cancel...
a suppression component configured to suppress a self
generic holder: a suppression component
functional language: configured to suppress a self...
an adjustment component configured to adjust
generic holder: an adjustment component
functional language: configured to adjust...
Claim(s) 9 and 10-12
a first generation component from an input terminal and
generic holder: a first generation component
functional language: from an input terminal and...
a second generation component by changing an amplitude and
generic holder: a second generation component
functional language: by changing an amplitude and...
a suppression component configured to suppressing a self
generic holder: a suppression component
functional language: configured to suppressing a self...
an adjustment component configured to adjusting
generic holder: an adjustment component
functional language: configured to adjusting...
Claim(s) 13 and 14-20
a first generation component configured to generate a carrier
generic holder: a first generation component
functional language: configured to generate a carrier...
a second generation component configured to generate a cancel
generic holder: a second generation component
functional language: configured to generate a cancel...
a suppression component configured to suppress a self
generic holder: a suppression component
functional language: configured to suppress a self...
an adjustment component configured to adjust
generic holder: an adjustment component
functional language: configured to adjust...
Exceptions to application of USC112(f):
Claims 2, 14 with regards to “adjustment component” as said claims further narrows the adjustment includes circuits, switch and controller which are structural parts.
Claims 6, 18 with regards to “first generation component” as said claims further narrows the first generation component to include an oscillator or phase shifter which are structural parts.
Claims 8, 20 with regards to “second generation component” as said claims further narrows the second generation component to include an attenuated or variable phase shifter which are structural parts.
35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 10-12
The claim(s) is directed to a method/process step however requires that the method comprises a suppression component, a first detector an adjustment component. Said components are not operations, but appears to be physical components. Consequently, the claim(s) is indefinite as it attempts state that a method comprises step of components.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and is considered allowable.
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 2-8, 14-20
The below section identifies the closest prior art. None of the references individually or in combination teach a first detector configured to “detect that impedance matching related to the antenna is in a predetermined mismatching state; and an adjustment component configured to adjust, in response to detection of a mismatching state by the first detector, an antenna impedance to eliminate the mismatching state.” Closest art is OSAMU - JP2001060841 that teaches avoiding a mismatching state which is different from the claim that effectively requires that the mismatching status has already occurred, and making adjustments to eliminate it. It appears in OSAMU - JP2001060841 the system does not enter a mismatching state by adjusting a circuit constant of the impedance matching circuit.
Relevant Cited References
PAN - WO2019120077 teaches at least one impedance variable circuit is disposed in at least one of the feeding regions to adjust the impedance of the adjusting antenna and the impedance of the RF front end to a mismatch state.
SUGIMOTO - WO2021024426 teaches a cancel signal, obtained by controlling at least one of the phase and amplitude of a transmission carrier signal.
NAGAI - US20070072567 teaches canceling circuit 200 includes a cancel-signal-amplitude control portion 201 and a cancel-signal-phase control portion 202 which are respectively operable to control an amplitude and a phase of the carrier wave received from the transmitter portion 132, for thereby generating the cancel signal.
OSAMU - JP2001060841 teaches avoiding an impedance mismatching state even if the impedance of an antenna changes in any state of transmission and reception.
SMITH - US20250300684 teaches toggling the antenna on the chip between reflecting and absorbing the carrier signal, or matched and mismatched impedance states.
TAKI - US20060267734 teaches second cancel signal having an amplitude substantially equal to an amplitude of the carrier wave, and a phase that is reversed with respect to that of the carrier wave.
MALARKY - US20180373904 teaches the cancel signal is based on the un-shifted carrier wave and the determined amplitude adjust.
SUNDSTROM - US20130273834 teaches cancel a signal transmitted from the relay node that leaks back into the receiver of the relay node to suppress self-interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights