Patent Application 18187232 - MOBILE TERMINAL TEST SYSTEM AND MOBILE TERMINAL

Title: MOBILE TERMINAL TEST SYSTEM AND MOBILE TERMINAL TEST METHOD

Application Information

Invention Title: MOBILE TERMINAL TEST SYSTEM AND MOBILE TERMINAL TEST METHOD
Application Number: 18187232
Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-03-21T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-03-21T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 455
National Sub-Class: 423000
Examiner Employee Number: 81498
Art Unit: 2474
Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

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 .

Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.

Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/21/23 has been considered by the examiner.

Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims include an acronym (3GPP), that should be spelled out at its first use. Appropriate correction is required.

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.
Claims 3 and 4 include limitations in this application that use the word “step”, and 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.

Further, 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 (i.e. “unit”) 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: parameter input unit, parameter calculation unit, standard conformance unit, parameter adjustment unit, conformance and nonconformance determination criterion value calculation unit in claims 1 and display control unit as in claim 2.
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 - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 3. Claims 1 and 3 recite “…the value of the parameter calculated by the parameter calculation unit conform with the 3GPP standard…”, “…adjusts the value of the parameter determined not to conform with the 3GPP standard…”, “… a value in conformity with the 3GPP standard…”, “…parameter having the value determined to conform with the 3GPP standard…” The claims refer to “the 3GPP standard”, however, 3GPP includes a vast number of standards, and conforming to all 3GPP standards would not be possible nor practical. The applicants specification does not explicitly explain this feature in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what standard this is referring to. Therefore, the claims are rejected as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Regarding claims 2 and 4. Claims 2 and 4 recite “…in conformity with the 3GPP standard…” The claims refer to “the 3GPP standard”, however, 3GPP includes a vast number of standards, and conforming to all 3GPP standards would not be possible nor practical. The applicant’s specification does not explicitly explain this feature in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what standard this is referring to. Therefore, the claims are rejected as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.

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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as failing to set forth 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 claims 1 and 3. Claims 1 and 3 recite “…the value of the parameter calculated by the parameter calculation unit conform with the 3GPP standard…”, “…adjusts the value of the parameter determined not to conform with the 3GPP standard…”, “… a value in conformity with the 3GPP standard…”, “…parameter having the value determined to conform with the 3GPP standard…” The claims refer to “the 3GPP standard”, however, 3GPP includes a vast number of standards, and conforming to all 3GPP standards would not be possible nor practical. The applicants specification does not explicitly explain this feature in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what standard this is referring to. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being indefinite. Further, claims 1 and 3 recite “the 3GPP standard” with no previous recitation of a 3GPP standard, and thus, this recitation lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claims 2 and 4. Claims 2 and 4 recite “…in conformity with the 3GPP standard…” The claims refer to “the 3GPP standard”, however, 3GPP includes a vast number of standards, and conforming to all 3GPP standards would not be possible nor practical. The applicants specification does not explicitly explain this feature in a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what standard this is referring to. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being indefinite.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panambur et al. (US 20180357143), hereinafter Panambur in view of Chinbe (US 20200205018), hereinafter Chinbe.
Regarding claims 1 and 3. Panambur teaches a mobile terminal test system and method that executes a test of a test case in a conformance test defined by a 3GPP standard of a mobile terminal (figures 1, 3, and 6, par. 10), the mobile terminal test system/method comprising: a parameter input unit (figure 3 item 308) that inputs a value to some of a plurality of parameters for executing the test of the test case (par. 24, system 100 may receive testing information, from a user…par. 46-51, test case selection module 308 may receive a user selection indicative of a component to be tested…test case selection module 308 may received a selection of one “or more” modules and the test case selection module may create the test case based on this selection; thus the system includes a parameter input unit that inputs a value to a plurality of parameters for executing the test); a parameter calculation unit (figure 3 item 308) that calculates a value of another parameter, according to the value of one or more parameters input by the parameter input unit (par. 25, the system 100 identifies a test case to be used based on…user input, par. 51 the test case selection module 308 receives the selection of one or more logical modules from the user, and “creates” the test case, thus reading on parameter calculation unit “calculating” another parameter according to the one or more parameters input); a standard conformance determination unit (figure 3 item 308) that determines whether or not the value of the parameter input by the parameter input unit and the value of the parameter calculated by the parameter calculation unit conform (par. 52, the test case selection module may verify testing conditions associated with the test case…example of a testing condition may include determining whether input data is complete or not for the selected test case) (figure 3 item 308) that adjusts the value of the parameter determined not to conform by the standard conformance determination unit to a value in conformity (par. 52, in a case where input data is incomplete (i.e. standard conformance unit determines the parameters do not conform), test case selection module 308 may request additional testing information for executing the test case (i.e. adjusting the value of the parameters that did not conform to a value that does conform); and a conformance and nonconformance determination criterion value calculation unit (figure 3 item 106) that calculates a conformance and nonconformance determination criterion value for the test case (par. 55, the validation module 106 may rate the components performance as either ”pass” (reads on conformance) or “fail” (reads on nonconformance)), by using a plurality of parameters including at least one of a parameter having the value determined to conform (par. 56 the validation module may generate a test report comprising the components performance based on the validation. Further the test report for the test is based on the user input, which is provided first (i.e. first user input is read as the parameter having the value adjusted) then based on the pre-test is updated with additional info (i.e. the additional info, added to the first user input, reads as the value determined to conform since it allows passing the pre-test as noted in par. 52-53). Thus, there are a plurality of parameters in the test case including at least one parameter having the value determined to conform (i.e. the updated user input information, which allows for clearing the pre-test as discussed in par. 51-53, and thus is the value determined to conform) and a parameter having value adjusted by the parameter adjustment unit (i.e the original information provided by user, which is updated with more information for the test when the system does not pass the pre-test). However, although Panambur teaches the method and system for testing devices and determining if parameter values conform (figure 3, pars. 43-56), they do not specifically disclose the concept of determining whether or not the parameter values conform with the 3GPP standard. Chinbe teaches a method and system for mobile terminal testing (par. 2), and thus is analogous to Panambur. Chinbe further teaches the concept determining whether or not the parameter values conform with the 3GPP standard (par. 3, such a test includes conformance test for checking whether or not the mobile communication terminal conforms to the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to include the conformation determination based on 3GPP standard as in XXX, with the method and system for testing devices and determining if parameter values conform as in Panambur. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for determining if the mobile can perform normal communication (Chinbe par. 2) or allow for shortening the time period required for measuring a conformance test (Chinbe par. 10).
Regarding claims 2 and 4. Panambur teaches mobile terminal test system and method according to claims 1 and 3. Panambur does not explicitly teach a display control unit that displays the value of the parameter in conformity with the 3GPP standard in a selectable manner, which is settable by the parameter input unit, on a display unit. Chinbe further teaches a display control unit (figure 1 item 6, control unit, further par. 29, the control unit 6 displays a test scenario creation screen) that displays the value of the parameter in conformity with the 3GPP standard in a selectable manner (figure 2, par. 38-41, figure 3 step S3 through S5, display test case list and list of identifiers of UE capability; par. 48-50, par. 3, such a test includes conformance test for checking whether or not the mobile communication terminal conforms to the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)), which is settable by the parameter input unit (figure 1 item 4, operation unit reads on parameter input unit; par. 28, the operation unit 4 is input devices such as keyboard, mouse, and a touch panel), on a display unit (figure 1 item 5, display unit). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to include the display unit as in Chinbe, with the method and system for testing devices and determining if parameter values conform as in Panambur. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for a seeing the selectable parameters and test case information to make a selection (Chinbe par. 37).

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL THIER whose telephone number is 571-272-2832. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM, Fri 7:00 AM-10:00 AM.
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, James Kramer can be reached at 571-272-6783. 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.
/MICHAEL THIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
MICHAEL THIER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2474