DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed on 4/11/2025.
Currently, claims 1-15, 17, and 19-22 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 19-22 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.
Section 3.1 (below):
Where independent claim 1 states (with emphasis added):
1. A radio receiver device configured:
to receive a radio signal comprising a data packet with a packet duration, said data packet comprising a first portion and a second portion;
to determine an initial estimate of the packet duration using data included in the first portion;
to determine a correction factor for said initial estimate of the packet duration using data included in the second portion; and
to combine the initial estimate and the correction factor to determine a refined estimate of the packet duration.
Where the first line of independent claim 1 fails to recite a recognized transitional phrase (e.g. ‘comprising’ or ‘including’, which are both examples of ‘open-ended’ transitional phrases) as pursuant to MPEP 2111.03 since term/phrase “configured” (and/or ‘configured to’) does not have a recognized meaning (e.g. open-ended or closed-ended) in regards to being a transitional phrase (again see MPEP 2111.03). Furthermore, the specification fails to define the meaning of term/phrase “configured” (or other wording in line 1 of claim 1) in regards to being a transitional phrase.
Then line 2 of claim 1 does recite a recognized transitional phrase, i.e. “comprising”, however as currently written/presented is directed to a “radio signal comprising” instead of the “radio receiver device” (or nested circuitry of the radio receiver device).
Where the cited limitations of claim 1 (as addressed above), fails to meet the threshold requirements for clarity and precision (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II) for defining clear “boundaries of the subject matter for which protection is sought” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.01) as well as “clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02) in regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and thus the independent claim 1 has indefinite claim scope with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Where dependent claims 2-15 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of the corresponding independent/parent claim 1 and thus are also rejected using similar rationale (as addressed above).
Section 3.2 (below):
Where independent claim 1 states (with emphasis added):
1. A radio receiver device configured:
to receive a radio signal comprising a data packet with a packet duration, said data packet comprising a first portion and a second portion;
to determine an initial estimate of the packet duration using data included in the first portion;
to determine a correction factor for said initial estimate of the packet duration using data included in the second portion; and
to combine the initial estimate and the correction factor to determine a refined estimate of the packet duration.
First, applicant is remined that ‘machine’ type claims (i.e. claims 1-15 in regards to the statutory category of “machine” as pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101) are defined by structural limitations (which in this case would be circuitry or at least ‘means plus functions’ under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (or an equivalent thereof)). However the limitations of independent claim 1 (as emphasized above) are a partial hybrid of ‘means plus function (or computer-implemented) and regular functional limitations (in a machine/apparatus type claim) that does/do not meet the requires for either regular functional limitations (in a machine/apparatus type claim) or a means plus function (or computer-implemented) under 35 U.S..C 112(f).
Therefore, the cited limitations of claim 1 (as addressed above in Section 3.2), fails to meet the threshold requirements for clarity and precision (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II) for defining clear “boundaries of the subject matter for which protection is sought” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.01) as well as “clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02) in regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and thus the independent claim 1 has indefinite claim scope with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Additionally independent claim 19 (in regards to the claimed “radio receiver device”) recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1, and thus claim 19 has indefinite claim scope (in regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) as addressed for claim 1 above (in Section 3.2 only).
Where dependent claims 2-15 and 20-22 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of the corresponding independent/parent claim and thus are also rejected using similar rationale as the corresponding independent/parent claim (as addressed above).
Section 3.3 (below):
An example of amendments to mitigate both previously addressed issues (see above), for independent claim 1 is:
1. A radio receiver device comprising at least one processor configured to:
[[to ]]receive a radio signal comprising a data packet with a packet duration, said data packet comprising a first portion and a second portion;
[[to ]]determine an initial estimate of the packet duration using data included in the first portion;
[[to ]]determine a correction factor for said initial estimate of the packet duration using data included in the second portion; and
[[to ]]combine the initial estimate and the correction factor to determine a refined estimate of the packet duration.
Similar amendments are recommended for independent claim 19 as well.
Additionally the language of some of the dependent claims would also have to be updated in order to be consistent with the proposed amendment to independent claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Where currently, the closes prior art of record is Tsai et al. (US 20140247715), which shows a similar invention including a receiver device (in a wireless communication system also including a transmitter device), the receiver device estimates the length of the received packet (e.g. see [0019-0022] and [0028]).
Claim 17 is allowed.
Claims 1 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-15 and 20-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. Perez, telephone number (571)270-3231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10am to 6pm EST.
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.
/JAMES M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights