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 .
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”) along with functional language not modified by structure 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.
Thus, in claim 1, the limitations “radio input means for…”, “radio frequency output means for…”, “Digital Pre-distorion (DPD) means for…” and the limitations “steps of inputting one or more radio frequency…” “(steps of ) outputting one or more radio frequency signals…”, “(steps of) applying Digital Pre-Distortion (DPD) means …” in claim 13 are 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.
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.
3. Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
In line 3, “the system in use” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear from the claim language if “the system in use” refers to “A linearization system” in line 1 of the claim. It is unclear from the claim language what the applicant is referring to with the phrase “in use”: “the system in use” in each of lines 3, 5 and 11, and “the radio frequency output means in use” in line 7 and “filter means in use” in the last line.
In claim 9, it is unclear what the applicant means by “filter means in use”.
Claims 2-12 and 14 are rejected as being indefinite for being dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 13:
In line 2, “the system” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear from the claim language if “the system” refers to “A linearization system” in line 1 of the claim. It is unclear from the claim language what the applicant is referring to with the phrase “using”: “A method of using” in line 1 and “the system using” in line 9.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is drawn to the method of using (a) radio frequency transmitter or transceiver apparatus including a linearization system according to the method of claim 13. The claim merely refers back to using a linearization system according to the method of claim 13. Claim 13 is drawn to using “a linearization system”. . It is unclear from the claim language if “a linearization system” refers back to “a linearization system in line 1 of claim 13”. It is unclear from the claim language what the correlation between using claimed linearization system of claim 15 and that of claim 13 is, it is unclear from the claim language how using a linearization system included in claimed radio frequency transmitter or transceiver will result in the use of the radio frequency transmitter or transceiver, no steps for using said radio frequency transmitter or transceiver are claimed.
Clarification is required.
Claims are interpreted hereinafter as best understood by examiner. Specifically, the “use/using” language is interpreted as the system performing claimed steps/functions. However, clarification and correction to make the claims compliant with US practices is required, especially with using consistent terminology and antecedent basis, using articles “a” or “an” at first instances of a term and “the” or “said” at subsequent instances of the term.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rafie et al. (US 20030058959 A1) digital predistortion in a radio network and precompensation of transmit analog filters.
McAllister (US 20050163249 A1) discloses digital predistortion to compensate for analog components in a transmitter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635