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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges amendments to the claims, amendments to the specification, and a replacement sheet for the drawings regarding Fig. 3C.
Interview
The Examiner acknowledges and generally agrees with the short summary regarding the applicant initiated interview held on 07/08/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner acknowledges and generally agrees with the short summary regarding the indicated allowable subject matter pending overcoming 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20-29 and 31, and pending overcoming 101 and 112(b) rejections for claim 30.
Objection to Drawings
The Examiner acknowledges the replacement drawing sheet including Fig. 3C, and withdraws the drawing objections regarding claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 due to the replacement drawing sheet. See new reasons for drawing objections necessitated by amendments below.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to claim 30 and withdraws the 112(b) rejection due to the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 101
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims.
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 13 paragraphs 6-7 through page 14 paragraph 1), that the Examiner’s assertions in the prior office actions regarding additional elements in the claims “radio station”, “for wireless transmission”, “transceiver electronics”, and “wireless transmission via the transceiver electronics” being generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use, and that receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, are not in line with considering the claims as a whole. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons given in the Final Rejection Office Action mailed on 05/12/2026. The Examiner further notes that the claims have been considered as a whole and that all of which were not highlighted as additional elements, were considered an abstract idea, and all of the noted additional elements were merely generally recited as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, and that as shown in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 14 paragraph 2), seemingly arguing that the patent document describes techniques that can be implemented in various embodiments to use a modulation scheme, and that when considered as a whole the claims recite a specific wireless communication technique performed by a radio station. The Examiner respectfully notes that the modulation scheme is what is considered the abstract idea (mathematical concept), and the merely applying the modulation scheme to be used by a radio station is generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use. The applicant continues, seemingly arguing that the non-zero coefficients of the claims correspond to phase values distributed between 0 and π/2 to reduce a peak average power ratio of the output sequence. The Examiner respectfully notes that the non-zero coefficients being phase values distributed between 0 and π/2 is merely a characteristic of the data being used in the mathematical concepts. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that reduction of a peak average power ratio of the output sequence is an argument for unclaimed elements. The Examiner further notes that “to reduce a peak average power ratio of the output sequence”, though an unclaimed element, would also be considered merely a consequence of the mathematical concept.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 14 paragraph 3 through page 15 paragraph 1), seemingly arguing that when considered as a whole, amended claim 1 recites a specific wireless communication technique performed by a radio station. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons given in the Final Office Action mailed on 05/12/2026, as well as the reasons above. Furthermore, see new reasons for rejection below necessitated by amendments.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 15 paragraph 2), seemingly arguing that even assuming the amended claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the Alice framework, that the claim amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception under Step 2B due to the claim reciting limitations which amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, through a specific wireless communication technique that provides improvement to wireless technology by helping to reduce PAPR. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons given in the Final Office Action mailed on 05/12/2026, as well as the reasons above. The Examiner also respectfully notes that an argument that the claims recite helping to reduce PAPR, is an argument for an unclaimed element.
The applicant continues, (Remarks page 15 paragraph 3-4, through page 16 paragraphs 1-2) that independent claims 6, 11, and 16 are amended and patent eligible for similar reasons as was given with claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons given above. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that the applicant's claims and the applicant's specification reflect what the applicant seemingly stated in the applicant initiated interview, that the improvement of the invention is directed towards a modulation scheme of mathematics (mathematical concept) which are applied in the use of wireless communication, the Examiner respectfully notes that the abstract idea alone cannot provide the improvement MPEP 2106.05(a), and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s conclusion statements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation by a filter module” of claims 11, and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6) because the applicant’s specification paragraphs are numbered using only two numerals. The applicant is reminded that each paragraph of the specification should be numbered in a manner of, “the number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros”.
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.
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: “filter module” in claims 1, 6, 11, and 16.
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, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-31 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim limitation of “filter module” of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 invoke 35 USC 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to provide an adequate description of the structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed functions of these limitations. See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below for further details as to the lack of structure.
Claims 5, and 21-25 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claims 10, and 26-31 inherit the same deficiency as claim 6 based on dependence.
Claim 15 inherits the same deficiency as claim 11 based on dependence.
Claim 20 inherits the same deficiency as claim 16 based on dependence.
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 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-31 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.
With regards to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, claim 1 recites the limitations of: “values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value”. Similarly claim 6 recites the limitations of: “wherein values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value”. Similarly, claim 11 recites the limitations of: “wherein values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1),..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value”. Similarly claim 16 recites the limitations of: “wherein values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value”. It is unclear if g(0) = g(2N), g(1) = g(2N-1, …, and g(N-1) g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), …., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, and wherein [h(0), h(1)] = [1,1], and wherein p is a scalar value is only applicable for if the non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as [f(0), …, f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), …, g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)] or if it is applicable for that as well as if the non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as [f(0), f(1), …, f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), …, g(2N)]. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitations are meant to be understood as the non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are each represented by a respective value, “[f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)]”. For purposes of examination the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that each of the non-zero coefficients are represented by a respective value, [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)], and that g(0) = g(2N), g(1) = g(2N-1, …, and g(N-1) g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), …., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, and wherein [h(0), h(1)] = [1,1], and wherein p is a scalar value is applicable for both possible representations, [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)].
Furthermore, with regards to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, these claims recite limitations regarding a “filter module” which invokes 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function. The specification refers to the “filter module” in terms of what it does, its function, versus what it is, its structure, see applicant’s specification [35]. The applicant’s specification [35] describes the filter module as merely a black box, without indicating adequate structure to perform all of the described functions of the “filter module”, “the operation of dot-multiplying is also referred to as a filtering operation by a filter module”.
Claims 5, and 21-25 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claims 10, and 26-31 inherit the same deficiency as claim 6 based on dependence.
Claim 15 inherits the same deficiency as claim 11 based on dependence.
Claim 20 inherits the same deficiency as claim 16 based on dependence.
With regards to claim 21, claim 21 recites the limitations of: “p is a normalization parameter configured to normalize moduli of all elements of the output sequence s(k) such that the normalized moduli are equal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, regarding “moduli”, in the claim.
Furthermore, claim 21 recites the limitations of: “p is a normalization parameter configured to normalize moduli of all elements of the output sequence s(k) such that the normalized moduli are equal”. Claim 21 is dependent on claim 1, wherein claim 1 recites the limitations of: “values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value”. Claim 1 recites that p is a scalar value and describes the use of p as being used in the calculations for representing non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients, which are what is used for determining frequency domain sequence Z(j), “a frequency domain sequence Z(j), wherein the dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation by a filter module, wherein Z(j) is determined based on a Fourier transform of a set of coefficients”. It is unclear if the limitations of claim 21, where it recites p as a normalization parameter configured to normalize moduli of all elements of sequence s(k), is meant to replace the limitations regarding p in claim 1, or if it is meant to be understood as p is a scalar used in calculations regarding non-zero coefficients as well as also being a normalization parameter used to normalize moduli.
With regards to claim 22, claim 22 recites the limitations of: “p is a normalization parameter, wherein p is
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
2
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
8
)
”. Claim 22 is dependent on claim 1, wherein claim 1 recites the limitations of: “values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value”. Claim 1 recites that p is a scalar value and describes the use of p as being used in the calculations for representing non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients, which are what is used for determining frequency domain sequence Z(j), “a frequency domain sequence Z(j), wherein the dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation by a filter module, wherein Z(j) is determined based on a Fourier transform of a set of coefficients”. It is unclear if the limitations of claim 22, where it recites p as a normalization parameter equal to
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
2
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
8
)
is meant to be replacing the limitations regarding p in claim 1, or if it is meant to be understood as p as a scalar is also a normalization parameter equal to
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
2
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
8
)
.
With regards to claim 26, claim 26 recites the limitations of: “wherein p is a normalization parameter configured to normalize moduli of all elements of the output sequence s(k) such that the normalized moduli are equal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, regarding “moduli”, in the claim.
Furthermore, claim 26 recites the limitations of: “wherein p is a normalization parameter configured to normalize moduli of all elements of the output sequence s(k) such that the normalized moduli are equal”. Claim 26 is dependent on claim 6, wherein claim 6 recites the limitations of: “values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value”. Claim 6 recites that p is a scalar value and describes the use of p as being used in the calculations for representing non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients, which are what is used for determining frequency domain sequence Z(j), “a frequency domain sequence Z(j), wherein the dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation by a filter module, wherein Z(j) is determined based on a Fourier transform of a set of coefficients”. It is unclear if the limitations of claim 26, where it recites p as a normalization parameter configured to normalize moduli of all elements of sequence s(k), is meant to replace the limitations regarding p in claim 6, or if it is meant to be understood as p is a scalar used in calculations regarding non-zero coefficients as well as also being a normalization parameter used to normalize moduli.
With regards to claim 27, claim 27 recites the limitations of: “p is a normalization parameter, wherein p is
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
2
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
8
)
”. Claim 27 is dependent on claim 6, wherein claim 6 recites the limitations of: “values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value”. Claim 6 recites that p is a scalar value and describes the use of p as being used in the calculations for representing non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients, which are what is used for determining frequency domain sequence Z(j), “a frequency domain sequence Z(j), wherein the dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation by a filter module, wherein Z(j) is determined based on a Fourier transform of a set of coefficients”. It is unclear if the limitations of claim 27, where it recites p as a normalization parameter equal to
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
2
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
8
)
is meant to be replacing the limitations regarding p in claim 6, or if it is meant to be understood as p as a scalar is also a normalization parameter equal to
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
2
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
8
)
.
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, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, including mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following, mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
A method for, comprising: determining, for a time-domain sequence x(i), an output sequence s(k) that is an inverse Fourier transform of a frequency-domain sequence S(j), wherein S(j) is an output of a frequency-domain shaping operation comprising a dot-multiplication of a frequency- domain sequence Y(j) and a frequency domain sequence Z(j), wherein the dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation, wherein Z(j) is determined based on a Fourier transform of a set of coefficients, wherein Y(j) corresponds to the time-domain sequence x(i) based on a parameter N, wherein values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value; using the output sequence s(k), wherein i is from 0 to I-1, j is from 0 to J-1, k is from 0 to K-1, I <J<= K, and wherein I, J, and K are non-negative integers and N is a positive integer.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 1 recites the additional elements of, “wireless communication”, “radio station”, “generating, by the radio station, a waveform”, “wireless transmission”, and “transmitting, by the radio station, the generated waveform on physical time-frequency resources”. The Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification [35] refers to “filtering operation by a filter module” as merely being the operation of dot-multiplying, and thus in view of the applicant’s specification, “filter module” of the claim is merely a black box, lacking structure and generically recited to perform the module’s stated function of filtering (dot-multiplication) as part of the mathematical concept. The “filter module” is a merely a tool, computer, to perform the abstract idea upon, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The additional elements of “wireless communication”, “radio station”, “generating, by the radio station, a waveform”, “wireless transmission”, and “transmitting, by the radio station, the generated waveform on physical time-frequency resources” are generically recited and merely generally linking to a particular environment or field of use, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is related to the additional elements of “wireless communication”, “wireless transmission”, is insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(g). For these reasons, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of “wireless communication”, “radio station”, “generating, by the radio station, a waveform”, “wireless transmission”, and “transmitting, by the radio station, the generated waveform on physical time-frequency resources” are generically recited and merely generally linking to a particular environment or field of use, MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi). Limiting the abstract idea, of the mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas into a particular environment does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the recited additional element of “filter module”, is merely describing a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding limitations the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional elements “wireless communication”, “wireless transmission”, and “transmitting, by the radio station, the generated waveform” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons, claim 1 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 5 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 5 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 5 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 1, wherein Y(j) is obtained by: (1) performing a Fourier transform on a time-domain sequence y(j), the time-domain sequence y(j) formed by inserting N zero coefficients before each coefficient of the time-domain sequence x(i) or after each coefficient of the time-domain sequence x(i), wherein the time- domain sequence x(i) is generated by mapping data bits to constellation points according to a modulation scheme; or (2) repeating a frequency-domain sequence X(i) N times such that a length of Y(j) is (N+1) times of a length of X(i), wherein X(i) is generated by performing a Fourier transform on the time-domain sequence x(i), and wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) is generated by the mapping data bits to constellation points according to the modulation scheme.
Claim 5 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 5 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 21 merely further limits the mathematical concepts set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 21 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 21 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 1, wherein p is a normalization parameter configured to normalize moduli of all elements of the output sequence s(k) such that the normalized moduli are equal.
Claim 21 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 21 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 22 merely further limits the mathematical concepts set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 22 recites an abstract idea, including mathematical concepts. Specifically, claim 22 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 1, wherein p is a normalization parameter, wherein p is
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
2
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
8
)
.
Claim 22 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 22 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 23 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 23 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 23 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 23 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 1, wherein a phase between adjacent elements of the time- domain sequence x(i) is 0, π/4, or π/6.
Claim 23 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 23 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 24 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 24 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 24 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 24 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 1, wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) comprises one or more zero coefficients.
Claim 24 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 24 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 25 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 25 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 25 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 25 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 1, wherein the comprises.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 25 recites the additional elements of, “wireless device”, and “base station”. These additional elements are considered generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons, claim 25 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 6 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 6 recites the following, mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
A method, comprising: a sequence s(k) that is generated based on a time-domain sequence x(i), the sequence s(k), wherein the sequence s(k) is an inverse Fourier transform of a frequency-domain sequence S(j), and wherein S(j) is an output of a frequency-domain shaping operation comprising a dot-multiplication of a frequency-domain sequence Y(j) and a frequency domain sequence Z(j), wherein the dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation, wherein Z(j) is determined based on a Fourier transform of a set of coefficients, wherein Y(j) corresponds to the time-domain sequence x(i) based on a parameter N, wherein values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value; and demodulating, the sequence s(k) to determine the time domain sequence x(i), wherein i is from 0 to I-1, j is from 0 to J-i,k is from 0 to K-1, and I <J<= K, and wherein I, J, and K are non-negative integers and N is a positive integer.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 6 recites the additional elements of, “wireless communication”, “receiving, by a radio station”, “carried on physical time-frequency resources for transmission”, and “radio station”. The Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification [35] refers to “filtering operation by a filter module” as merely being the operation of dot-multiplying, and thus in view of the applicant’s specification, “filter module” of the claim is merely a black box, lacking structure and generically recited to perform the module’s stated function of filtering (dot-multiplication) as part of the mathematical concept. The “filter module” is a merely a tool, computer, to perform the abstract idea upon, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The additional elements of “wireless communication”, “receiving, by a radio station”, “carried on physical time-frequency resources for transmission”, and “radio station” are generically recited and merely generally linking to a particular environment or field of use, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is related to the additional elements of “wireless communication”, “receiving, by a radio station”, are insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(g). For these reasons, claim 6 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of “wireless communication”, “receiving, by a radio station”, “carried on physical time-frequency resources for transmission”, and “radio station” are generically recited and merely generally linking to a particular environment or field of use, MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi). Limiting the abstract idea, of the mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas into a particular environment does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the recited additional element of “filter module” is merely describing a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding limitations the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional elements “wireless communication”, “receiving, by a radio station” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). For these reasons, claim 6 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claim 10 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 6.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 10 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 6, wherein Y(j) is obtained by: (1) performing a Fourier transform on the time-domain sequence y(j), a time-domain sequence y(j) formed by inserting N zero coefficients before each coefficient of the time-domain sequence x(i) or after each coefficient of the time-domain sequence x(i), wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) is generated by mapping data bits to constellation points according to a modulation scheme; or (2) repeating a frequency-domain sequence X(i) N times such that a length of Y(j) is (N+1) times of a length of X(i), wherein X(i) is generated by performing a Fourier transform on the time-domain sequence x(i), and wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) is generated by the mapping data bits to constellation points according to the modulation.
Claim 10 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 10 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 26 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claim 26 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 6.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 26 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 26 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 6, wherein p is a normalization parameter configured to normalize moduli of all elements of the output sequence s(k) such that the normalized moduli are equal.
Claim 26 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 26 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 27 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claim 27 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 6.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 27 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 27 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 6, wherein p is a normalization parameter, wherein p is
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
2
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
π
8
)
.
Claim 27 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 27 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 28 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claim 28 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 6.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 28 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 28 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 6, wherein a phase between adjacent elements of the time- domain sequence x(i) is 0, π/4, or π/6.
Claim 28 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 28 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 29 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claim 29 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 6.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 29 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 29 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 6, wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) comprises one or more zero coefficients.
Claim 29 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 29 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 30 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claim 30 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 6.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 30 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 30 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: determining the time-domain sequence x(i) using a maximum ratio combining algorithm.
Claim 30 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 30 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 31 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claim 31 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 6.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 31 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 31 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The method of claims 6, where the comprises.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 31 recites the further additional elements of, “wireless device”, and “base station”. These additional elements are considered generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(h)(vi). For these reasons, claim 31 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 11 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 11 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 11 recites the following, mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
determine, for a time-domain sequence x(i), an output sequence s(k) that is an inverse Fourier transform of a frequency-domain sequence S(j), wherein S(j) is an output of a frequency-domain shaping operation comprising a dot-multiplication of a frequency-domain sequence Y(j) and a frequency domain sequence Z(j), wherein the dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation, wherein Z(j) is determined based on a Fourier transform of a set of coefficients, wherein Y(j) corresponds to the time-domain sequence x(i) based on a parameter N, wherein values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1),..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value; using the output sequence s(k), wherein i is from 0 to I-1, j is from 0 to J-1, k is from 0 to K-1, I <J<= K, and wherein I, J, and K are non-negative integers and N is a positive integer.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 11 recites the additional elements of, “wireless communications apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “processor electronics”, “memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to”, “filter module”, “generate a waveform”, “wireless transmission”, “transceiver electronics”, and “transmit, using the transceiver electronics, the generated waveform on physical time- frequency resources”. The Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification [35] refers to “filtering operation by a filter module” as merely being the operation of dot-multiplying, and thus in view of the applicant’s specification, “filter module” of the claim is merely a black box, lacking structure and generically recited to perform the module’s stated function of filtering (dot-multiplication) as part of the mathematical concept. The “filter module” is a merely a tool, computer, to perform the abstract idea upon, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, the additional elements of “processor electronics”, and “memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to” are limitations regarding a processor and memory storing instructions, which is merely a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The additional elements of “wireless communications apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “generate a waveform”, “wireless transmission”, “transceiver electronics”, and “transmit, using the transceiver electronics, the generated waveform on physical time- frequency resources” are generically recited and merely generally linking to a particular environment or field of use, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is related to “wireless transmission”, “transmit, using the transceiver electronics, the generated waveform” is insignificant extra-solution activity, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(g). For these reasons, claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of “wireless communications apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “generate a waveform”, “wireless transmission”, “transceiver electronics”, and “transmit, using the transceiver electronics, the generated waveform on physical time- frequency resources” are generically recited and merely generally linking to a particular environment or field of use, MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi). Limiting the abstract idea, of mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas to a particular environment does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is related to “wireless transmission”, “transmit, using the transceiver electronics, the generated waveform” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Furthermore, the recited additional elements of “filter module”, “processor electronics”, and “memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to” are merely describing a generic computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding limitations the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional element of “memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to” is describing mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, “memory storing instructions” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). For these reasons, claim 11 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 11. Claim 15 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 11.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 15 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 15 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein Y(j) is obtained by: (1) performing a Fourier transform on the time-domain sequence y(j), a time-domain sequence y(j) formed by inserting N zero coefficients before each coefficient of the time-domain sequence x(i) or after each coefficient of the time-domain sequence x(i), wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) is generated by mapping data bits to constellation points according to a modulation scheme; or (2) repeating a frequency-domain sequence X(i) N times such that a length of Y(j) is (N+1) times of a length of X(i), wherein X(i) is generated by performing a Fourier transform on the time-domain sequence x(i), and wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) is generated by the mapping data bits to constellation points according to the modulation scheme.
Claim 15 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 15 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 16, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 16 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 16 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 16 recites the following, mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
A sequence s(k) that is generated based on a time-domain sequence x(i), the sequence s(k) being, wherein the sequence s(k) is an inverse Fourier transform of a frequency- domain sequence S(j), and wherein S(j) is an output of a frequency-domain shaping operation comprising a dot-multiplication of a frequency-domain sequence Y(j) and a frequency domain sequence Z(j), wherein the dot-multiplication comprises a filtering operation, wherein Z(j) is determined based on a Fourier transform of a set of coefficients, wherein Y(j) corresponds to the time-domain sequence x(i) based on a parameter N, wherein values of non-zero coefficients in the set of coefficients are represented as: [f(0),f(1), ..., f(2N)] = p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)], or [f(0), f(1), ..., f(2N+1)] being a convolution of p*[g(0), g(1), ..., g(2N)] and [h(0), h(1)], wherein g(0)=g(2N), g(1)=g(2N-1), ..., and g(N- 1)=g(N+1), wherein g(0), g(1), ..., and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to π/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value; and demodulate the sequence s(k) to determine the time domain sequence x(i), wherein i is from 0 to I-1, j is from 0 to J-i,k is from 0 to K-1, and I <J<= K, and wherein I, J, and K are non-negative integers and N is a positive integer.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, claim 16 recites additional elements of, “wireless communications apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “processor electronics”, “carried on physical time-frequency resources for transmission”, “memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to”, “receive”, and “filter module”. The recited processor and memory storing instructions, “processor electronics”, “memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to”, is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification [35] refers to “filtering operation by a filter module” as merely being the operation of dot-multiplying, and thus in view of the applicant’s specification, “filter module” of the claim is merely a black box, lacking structure and generically recited to perform the module’s stated function of filtering (dot-multiplication) as part of the mathematical concept. The “filter module” is a merely a tool, computer, to perform the abstract idea upon, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The additional elements of “wireless communications apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “carried on physical time-frequency resources for transmission” are generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, “memory storing instructions” is insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Furthermore, “receive” data over a network is insignificant extra solution activity, MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The Examiner notes that the Examiner interprets “demodulate the sequence” as part of the abstract idea because there is nothing indicating that the demodulation is calculated in any structure. For these reasons, claim 16 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of “wireless communications apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “carried on physical time-frequency resources for transmission” are generically recited and generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi). Limiting the abstract idea, of mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas to a particular environment does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element of “receive” data over a network is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Furthermore, the recited “processor electronics”, “memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to”, “filter module” are generically recited describing a generic computer where the abstract idea is simply applied to compute, see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) regarding limitations the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with judicial exception. Furthermore, “memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to”, and “processor electronics” are describing a generic computer with mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, “memory storing instructions” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). For these reasons, claim 16 is not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 16. Claim 20 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 16.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 20 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 20 recites the following mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein Y(j) is obtained by: (1) performing a Fourier transform on the time-domain sequence y(j), a time-domain sequence y(j) formed by inserting N zero coefficients before each coefficient of the time-domain sequence x(i) or after each coefficient of the time-domain sequence x(i), wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) is generated by mapping data bits to constellation points according to a modulation scheme; or (2) repeating a frequency-domain sequence X(i) N times such that a length of Y(j) is (N+1) times of a length of X(i), wherein X(i) is generated by performing a Fourier transform on the time-domain sequence x(i), and wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) is generated by the mapping data bits to constellation points according to the modulation.
Claim 20 recites no further additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 20 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-31 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, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20-31 have previously been indicated as containing allowable subject matter as seen in the Final Rejection Office Action mailed on 05/12/2026. The reasons for indication of allowable subject matter of these claims is substantially the same reasons set forth in the Final Rejection Office Action mailed on 05/12/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-3:30pm 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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at 571-272-3702. 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.
/J.A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights