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 .
Response to Arguments
Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges amendments to the claims as well as newly added claims 21-31.
Drawings
The applicant seemingly argues, (Remarks page 8 paragraphs 4-5) that amendments to the drawings is not necessary due to the time-domain sequence x(i) being shown in the applicant’s Figures 3A, and 3B, and x(i) being generated by mapping data bits to constellation points is described in the applicant’s specification. The applicant points to 35 U.S.C. 113, “the applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the MPEP 601.01(f) it gives examples of types of limitations which drawings are not usually considered necessary for the understanding of the invention under 35 U.S.C. 113, the examples include:
(A) Coated articles or products: where the invention resides solely in coating or impregnating a conventional sheet (e.g., paper or cloth, or an article of known and conventional character with a particular composition), unless significant details of structure or arrangement are involved in the article claims; [AltContent: rect]
(B) Articles made from a particular material or composition: where the invention consists in making an article of a particular material or composition, unless significant details of structure or arrangement are involved in the article claims; [AltContent: rect]
(C) Laminated structures: where the claimed invention involves only laminations of sheets (and coatings) of specified material unless significant details of structure or arrangement (other than the mere order of the layers) are involved in the article claims; or [AltContent: rect]
(D) Articles, apparatus, or systems where sole distinguishing feature is presence of a particular material: where the invention resides solely in the use of a particular material in an otherwise old article, apparatus or system recited broadly in the claims, for example:
(1) A hydraulic system distinguished solely by the use therein of a particular hydraulic fluid;
(2) Packaged sutures wherein the structure and arrangement of the package are conventional and the only distinguishing feature is the use of a particular material.
Generation of data through specified technique (such as constellation mapping) does not seem to be related to any of the given examples. Furthermore, MPEP 608.01(g) states: “Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.” Furthermore, MPEP 608.02(d), in 37 C.F.R. 1.83, it states “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.”
For these reasons, the drawing objection remains.
35 U.S.C. 112
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to the claims, and withdraws the 112(b) rejections due to the amendments.
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 argues, (Remarks page 9 – page 10 paragraphs 1-4), that the recited operations are not performed in the abstract, but carried out by a radio station to determine an output sequence and to generate a waveform using the output sequence for wireless transmission, and that due to this, the mathematical concept is integrated into a practical application and not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Adding in the additional elements of a “radio station” and “for wireless transmission”, is considered generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use, MPEP 2106.04(d), MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The applicant continues, arguing, (Remarks page 10 paragraphs 5-8 – page 11 paragraphs 1-3), that the recited operations are not performed in the abstract but integrated into a specific wireless communications apparatus that includes transceiver electronics for transmitting the generated waveform, thus integrating the mathematical concepts into a practical application and not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Adding in the additional elements of a “transceiver electronics” and “wireless transmission via the transceiver electronics”, is considered generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use, MPEP 2106.04(d), MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
35 U.S.C. 102
The Examiner acknowledges and has considered the applicant’s arguments. Furthermore, the Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims. The applicant makes arguments, (Remarks pages 12-14) that the cited prior art, Jungnickel(U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/082270 A1), hereinafter, “Jungnickel”, does not teach or suggest all of the claimed limitations of the independent claims. The Examiner is convinced by the arguments, specifically by the arguments regarding the Jungnickel not teaching or suggesting the amendments to the independent claims. The 102 rejections are withdrawn due to amendments to the claims as well as the applicant’s arguments.
35 U.S.C. 103
The applicant seemingly argues that 103 rejections of the dependent claims, 5, 10, 15, and 20 are rendered moot at least due to their dependency on the independent claims. The Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections due to independent claims overcoming their 102 rejections.
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s conclusion statements.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information in the disclosure statements, all which are not struck out, are being considered by the examiner.
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 generation of the time domain sequence by mapping data bits to constellation points according to a modulation scheme of claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites the limitation of: “determining the time-domain sequence x(i) using a maximum ratio combining algorithm.” Claim 30 is dependent on claim 6. Claim 6 recites the limitation of: “demodulating, by the radio station, the sequence s(k) to determine the time domain sequence x(i)”. It is unclear if “determining the time-domain sequence x(i) using a maximum ratio combining algorithm” of claim 30 is meant to replace the of determining x(i) of claim 6, or is somehow meant to be understood as working in conjunction with the determining x(i) of claim 6.
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, 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 a
mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following, mathematical relationships, and
mathematical formulas:
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 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), where g(0), g(1), …, and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to
2
wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1,1] and wherein p is a scalar value; and, 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 radio station, a waveform”, and “for wireless transmission”. These additional elements are considered generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is related to the additional elements of “wireless communication”, and “for wireless transmission”, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and MPEP 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 radio station, a waveform”, and “for wireless transmission” are considered 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 elements of “wireless communication”, and “for wireless transmission” are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see 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 concept:
The method of claim 1, 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 5 recites no 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 concept 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 concept:
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 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 concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 22 recites an abstract idea, including a
mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 22 recites the following mathematical concept:
The method of claim 1, wherein p is a normalization parameter, wherein p is
1
2
C
o
s
(
12
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
8
)
.
Claim 22 recites no 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 concept:
The method of claim 1, wherein a phase between adjacent elements of the time- domain sequence x(i) is 0,
4
or
6
.
Claim 23 recites no 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 concept:
The method of claim 1, wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) comprises one or more zero coefficients.
Claim 24 recites no 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 concept:
The method of claim 1, wherein the radio station comprises.
Claim 25 recites no additional elements in the claim limitations which require a Step 2A prong 2
or Step 2B analysis. For these reasons, claim 25 is neither integrated into a practical application nor
amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 2106.05(h). 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, and
mathematical formulas:
receiving, a sequence s(k) that is generated based on a time-domain sequence x(i), 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 Z(j) is determined 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), where g(0), g(1), …, and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to
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-l, 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”, and “ receiving, by a radio station”. The additional elements, “wireless communication”, and “receiving, by a radio station” are considered 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, “wireless communication” is not positively recited in the body of the claim and is not integral to the claim. The Examiner notes that the Examiner interprets “demodulating the sequence” as part of the abstract idea because there is nothing indicating that the demodulating is calculated in any structure. Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is related to the additional elements of “wireless communication”, and “receiving, by a radio station”, is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), and MPEP 2106.05(g). For these reasons, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. For these reasons, claim 6 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of “wireless communication”, and “receiving, by a radio station” are considered 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 elements of “wireless communication”, and “receiving, by a radio station” are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see 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 concept:
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 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 concept:
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 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 concept:
The method of claim 6, wherein p is a normalization parameter, wherein p is
1
2
C
o
s
(
12
)
or
1
2
C
o
s
(
8
)
.
Claim 27 recites no 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 concept:
The method of claim 6, wherein a phase between adjacent elements of the time- domain sequence x(i) is 0,
4
or
6
.
Claim 28 recites no 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 concept:
The method of claim 6, wherein the time-domain sequence x(i) comprises one or more zero coefficients.
Claim 29 recites no 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 concept:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: determining the time-domain sequence x(i) using a maximum ratio combining algorithm.
Claim 30 recites no 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 concept:
The method of claim 6, where the radio station comprises.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 31 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 2106.05(h). 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, and
mathematical 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 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), where g(0), g(1), …, and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to
2
wherein [h(0), h(1)]=[1,1] and wherein p is a scalar value; and 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, and Step 2B analysis, claim 11 recites additional
elements of, “wireless communication apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “generate a waveform”, “memory storing instructions”, “processor electronics”, and “for wireless transmission”. The recited processor and memory storing instructions is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The additional elements of “wireless communication apparatus”, “generate a waveform”, “transceiver electronics”, and “for wireless transmission” are considered generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, “memory storing instructions” is considered insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). For these reasons, claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the additional elements of “wireless communication apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “generate a waveform”, and “for wireless transmission” are considered 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 elements of “wireless communication apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “generate a waveform”, and “for wireless transmission” are considered part of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Furthermore, the recited additional elements of “memory storing instructions”, and “processor electronics” would be considered a 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, the additional elements of “memory storing instructions”, and “processor electronics” are considered mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, “memory storing instructions” is considered 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 concept:
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 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, and
mathematical formulas:
receive a sequence s(k) that is generated based on a time-domain sequence x(i), 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 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), where g(0), g(1), …, and g(N) correspond to phase values between 0 to
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-1,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 communication apparatus”, “transceiver electronics”, “memory storing instructions” and, “processor electronics”. The recited processor and memory storing instructions is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The additional elements of “wireless communication apparatus”, and “transceiver electronics” is considered generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Furthermore, “memory storing instructions” is considered insignificant extra solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). 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 communication apparatus”, and “transceiver electronics” are considered 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 elements of “wireless communication apparatus”, and “transceiver electronics” are considered part of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Furthermore, the recited additional elements of “memory storing instructions”, and “processor electronics” would be considered a 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, the additional elements of “memory storing instructions”, and “processor electronics” are considered mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, “memory storing instructions” is considered 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 concept:
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, 20-29, and 31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims a method of wireless communication, the method comprising:
A method for wireless communication, comprising: determining, by a radio station, 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 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 [Symbol font/0x70]/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)] = [1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value; and generating, by the radio station, a waveform using the output sequence s(k) for wireless transmission, 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.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant claims a method of wireless communication, the method comprising:
A wireless communication method, comprising: receiving, by a radio station, a sequence s(k) that is generated based on a time-domain sequence x(i), 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 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 [Symbol font/0x70]/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)] = [1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value; and demodulating, by the radio station, 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-1,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.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, the applicant claims a wireless communication apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
A wireless communications apparatus comprising transceiver electronics, processor electronics and a memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to: 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 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 [Symbol font/0x70]/2, wherein [h(0), h(1)] = [1, 1], and wherein p is a scalar value; and generate a waveform using the output sequence s(k) for wireless transmission via the transceiver electronics, 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.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant claims a wireless communication apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
A wireless communications apparatus comprising transceiver electronics, processor electronics and a memory storing instructions, execution of which by the processor electronics causes the apparatus to: receive, using the transceiver electronics, a sequence s(k) that is generated based on a time-domain sequence x(i), 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 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 [Symbol font/0x70]/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-1,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.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the above italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations including intervening claims.
Jungnickel teaches or suggests a method and apparatus for transmitting a signal. Jungnickel discusses determining for a time-domain sequence, an output sequence that is an inverse Fourier transform of a frequency domain sequence (Fig. 1 regarding 1102 (N Data Symbols) as time-domain sequence, output of 1122 (M-Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform), input of 1122 (M-Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform) as a frequency domain sequence (as in S(j))). However, Jungnickel fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Jungnickel in combination with Whinnett et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0165730 A1), hereinafter “Whinnett”, discusses some of the claimed limitations, with Whinnett helping by discussing mapping data bits to constellation points according to a modulation scheme ([0066] regarding time domain blocks comprising modulation symbols generated by bit to constellation mappers)). However, Jungnickel in combination with Whinnett fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Ferdinand et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210099330), hereinafter, “Ferdinand”, discusses wireless communication including taking a time domain, and outputting a sequence based on it (Fig. 2A, 2B). Furthermore, Ferdinand discusses a frequency domain sequence, a frequency domain spectral shaper, and an inverse Fourier transform. However, Ferdinand fails to teach or suggest the italicized claim limitations in combination with the remaining claim limitations as referenced above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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