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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 6, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the previous Office Action issued February 4, 2026 (hereinafter “the previous Office Action”), claims 1-30 were pending.
This action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed March 24, 2026. In the amendment, claims 1, 3-4, 6, 12, 14-15, 23-25, and 30 were amended, claims 8-9, 19-20, and 26-27 were canceled, and claims 31-36 were added. Thus, claims 1-7, 10-18, 21-25, and 28-36 are pending.
The objections of claim 6, set forth in the previous Office Action, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejections of claims 8-9, 19-20, and 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 103, set forth in the previous Office Action, have been withdrawn in view of the cancelations.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 5, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 23-25, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are directed to an apparatus [machine]. Claims 23-25 and 28-29 are directed to a method [process].
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The following limitations are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
(a) determine feedback associated with the machine learning component…wherein the feedback includes a plurality of quantized scalar values corresponding to local gradients or updated weights of the machine learning component (determining feedback can be mentally performed with at least human evaluation)
determine a quantized value based at least in part on the feedback and using randomization with probabilities (determining a quantized value can be mentally performed with pen and paper with at least human evaluation)
wherein the probabilities are based at least in part on:
respective distances between each of the plurality of quantized scalar values and each of the plurality of quantized digits (determining a quantized value using probabilities based on a distance calculations can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
a distribution of the feedback across the plurality of quantized scalar values, and (determining a quantized value using probabilities based on a distribution can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
a condition associated with a channel between the user equipment and a network node (determining a quantized value using probabilities based on a condition can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
(a) …based at least in part on applying the machine learning component
The following additional elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
receive a configuration associated with a machine learning component
transmit, to the network node, the quantized value
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
(a) …based at least in part on applying the machine learning component
The following additional elements are directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts (as per Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.].
receive a configuration associated with a machine learning component
transmit, to the network node, the quantized value
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the machine learning component comprises at least one neural network
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the machine learning component comprises at least one neural network
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim. Additionally,
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the plurality of quantized scalar values corresponds to the updated weights of the machine learning components (determining updated weights can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim. Additionally,
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the plurality of quantized scalar values corresponds to at least one vector (vector data can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim. Additionally,
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the quantized value is based at least in part on one component of the at least one vector (determining a quantized value using vector data can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim. Additionally,
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the quantized value is based at least in part on two or more components of the at least one vector (determining a quantized value using vector data can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim. Additionally,
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein the quantized value is based at least in part on a projection of the at least one vector (determining a quantized value using a projection of the vector data can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, the above limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). Given a sufficiently small set of data, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
The following additional elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(g)].
receive an indication of at least one relation between the probabilities and the respective distances
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following additional elements are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea [see MPEP 2106.05(f)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
The following additional elements are directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts (as per Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362) have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.].
receive an indication of at least one relation between the probabilities and the respective distances
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 2A, Prong 1: This claim recites the same abstract ideas as in the parent claim. Additionally,
The following limitations are/remain directed to the abstract idea of a mental process [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion).
wherein at least one relation between the probabilities and the respective distances is preconfigured (determining a quantized value using a preconfigured relation between probabilities and respective distances can be mentally performed with pen and paper using human evaluation)
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in this claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in this claim that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claims 23-25 and 28-29:
Claims 23-25 and 28-29 correspond to claims 1, 3-4, and 10-11. In particular, 23:1, 24:3, 25:4, 28:10, and 29:11.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claims recite the same abstract ideas as in claims 1, 3-4, and 10-11.
Step 2A, Prong 2: There are no additional elements in these claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The analysis of claims 23-25 and 28-29 at this step mirror that of claims 1, 3-4, and 10-11.
Step 2B: There are no additional elements in these claims that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis of claims 23-25 and 28-29 at this step mirror that of claims 1, 3-4, and 10-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-6-2025 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Remarks, p. 11. Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that the limitations integrate the claimed functionality into a specific, practical application in wireless communication. In particular Applicant argues the UE (user equipment) applies machine learning to real communication data and generates quantized data values that directly affect transmission over the channel. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail under 101, the limitations involving determining feedback and determining a quantized value are mentally performable. The use of the machine learning component is recited at a high level and therefore analyzed as mere instructions to apply. The remaining limitations involve receiving and transmitting data. Both these additional element limitations do not integrate into a specific, practical application because they are generic recitations of receiving or transmitting data over a network. Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data, when claimed in a merely generic manner, is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.]. For at least these reasons, the claim does not integrate into a practical application, and remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Remarks, pp 12-16. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant’s arguments regarding “a condition associated with a channel between the user equipment and a network node.” Accordingly, the rejections has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN PHUNG whose telephone number is (703) 756-1499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, KAMRAN AFSHAR can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/STEVEN PHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights