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 .
Interpretation according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for providing a first signal to a remote receiver on a conductor” in Claim 8;
“means for receiving a control signal from the remote receiver on the conductor, wherein the control signal is a bias voltage on the conductor” in Claim 8;
“means for providing a second signal on the conductor in response to receiving the control signal” in Claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) 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.
Claim Rejections – US U.S.C. 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 8-14 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 8, all the “means” can be interpreted as software component. They fail to provide physical structural element to constitute the apparatus as claimed.
Claims 9-14 are vague by virtue of their dependency on Claim 8.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (2021/0195436).
Regarding Claim 1, Hong et al. (2021/0195436) discloses a method of receiving radio frequency signals with a remote antenna module, comprising:
providing a first signal (bus 244 is bidirectional and multiple) (paragraph [0043], fig. 2) to a remote receiver (transceiver 202 may include one receiver and one transmitter, paragraph [0046], fig. 2);
receiving a control signal (244) (paragraph [0043], fig. 2) from the remote receiver (202);
providing a second signal (244) (paragraph [0043], fig. 2) in response to receiving the control signal (paragraphs [0044] to [0046]).
As discussed above, Hong essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose bias voltage.
However, since the circuit inside a handheld device UE104 comprises digital circuit and analog components, voltage running inside must be kept low. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have provided bias voltage (steady DC voltage) to communicate and supply the circuit components inside the handheld device in order to prevent the electrical components from blowing up or overheating since AC is very high voltage and AC cannot be run inside a digital circuit.
As discussed above, Hong essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose providing voltage on a conductor.
However, Hong teaches coaxial cable as conductor to transmit voltages in a remote source (paragraph [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have provided coaxial cable as conductor to transmit voltages in order to reduce latency and obtain signal stability as taught by Hong.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, Hong discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the control signal is configured to vary a state of a low noise amplifier (LNA 290) (fig. 2), and wherein the first signal is based on a first state (on/off state of switch 292) of the low noise amplifier and the second signal is based on a second state (off/on state of switch 292, fig. 2) of the low noise amplifier (to control minimum and maximum gain values as first and second states) (paragraph [0048]).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 3, Hong discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the control signal is configured to vary a state of a variable tuning element (turned to operate at specified frequencies), and wherein the first signal is based on a first state (at one specified frequency) of the variable tuning element and the second signal is based on a second state (at another specified frequency) of the variable tuning element (paragraph [0051]).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4, Hong discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the control signal is configured to vary a state of a radio frequency filter, and wherein the first signal is based on a first state (on/off state of switch 292) of the radio frequency filter and the second signal is based on a second state (off/on state of switch 292, fig. 2) of the radio frequency filter (296).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 5, Hong discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the control signal is configured to vary a beam angle of an antenna array, and wherein the first signal is based on a first beam angle (first serving beams) and the second signal is based on a second beam angle (second serving beams) (paragraph [0061]).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 6, Hong discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the control signal is configured to vary a physical orientation of an antenna, and wherein the first signal is based on a first physical orientation (based on orientation and placements of the RX beams) and the second signal is based on a second physical orientation (another orientation and placements of the RX beams) (paragraphs [0068], [0073]).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected similarly as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, as discussed above, Hong essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising providing feedback information on the conductor.
However, Hong teaches coaxial cable as conductor to transmit voltages in a remote source (paragraph [0100]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have provided coaxial cable as conductor to transmit voltages in order to reduce latency and obtain signal stability as taught by Hong.
Claim 14 is rejected similarly as discussed above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
