DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The action is responsive to the Amendment filed on October 7, 2025. Claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 18, and 20 were amended. No claims were added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform crest factor reduction by: computing a scaling factor for each peak sample in a first set of data samples associated with an input signal, the scaling factor being indicative of a magnitude by which each peak sample in the first set of data samples exceeds a threshold value; computing, via a first peak cancellation process, a first set of gain factors using scaling factors identified with a subset of the peak samples, the first set of gain factors representing respective values to reduce the magnitude of each respective one of the subset of the peak samples to less than or equal to the threshold value, the first set of gain factors being computed for each of the subset of the peak samples in parallel with one another as a single iteration; selectively updating, via a second peak cancellation process, the first set of gain factors to yield a second set of gain factors, the second set of gain factors representing respective values to reduce the magnitude of each remaining peak sample from among the peak samples to less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, the second set of gain factors being computed iteratively per each remaining peak sample from among the peak samples; and subtracting, from a second set of data samples associated with the signal, a scaled cancellation pulse signal that is generated using one of (i) the first set of gain factors, or (ii) the second set of gain factors, to generate a transmit signal; and cause transmission of the transmit signal via a power amplifier, wherein the transmit signal has data samples in the digital domain with a maximum magnitude that is less than or equal to the threshold value as a result of the CFR. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.” Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claim 13.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a computer program product claim. Likewise, claim 13 is an apparatus claim.
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim., Under Step 2A, Prong One, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps recited in Claim 1 include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process. This can be seen in the claimed process steps of “computing a scaling factor for each peak sample in a first set of data samples associated with an input signal…” (See, for example, FIG. 6A; ¶¶63-64, ¶¶78-79 {Including Eqn. 2}, of the instant specification), “computing, via a first peak cancellation process, a first set of gain factors…” (See, for example, FIG. 6A; ¶¶63-64, ¶¶80-86 {Including Eqn. 3}, of the instant specification), “selectively updating, via a second peak cancellation process, the first set of gain factors to yield a second set of gain factors…” (See, for example, FIG. 6A; ¶¶63-64, ¶¶86-86 {Including Eqn. 3}; FIG. 7C; ¶¶92-94 {Including Eqn. 4}, of the instant specification), “and “subtracting, from a second set of data samples associated with the signal, a scaled cancellation pulse signal…” (See, for example, FIG. 6A; ¶65, FIGS. 6B, 8B; ¶88, ¶98-100, of the instant specification), each of which encompasses mathematical concepts requiring specific mathematical calculations (The equations described in ¶79, ¶85, ¶93 of the instant specification.) to perform the recited crest factor reduction process, and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. For example, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the steps of “computing,” “computing,” “selectively updating,” and “subtracting” are performed using one are more training algorithms (equation(s)).
In the alternative, each of the recited judicial exceptions may also be considered a mental process because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, capable of being performed using a pen and paper. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, upon receipt of a first set of data samples associated with a signal to be transmitted, a human user would be capable of calculating a scaling factor for each peak sample, calculating a first set of gain factors using scaling factors identified with a subset of the peak samples via a first peak cancellation process, selectively updating the first set of gain factors to yield a second set of gain factors via a second peak cancellation process, and subtracting, from a second set of data samples associated with the signal, a scaled cancellation pulse signal that is generated using one of (i) the first set of gain factors, or (ii) the second set of gain factors, by pen and paper, using the disclosed equations, for example. While such calculations by pen and paper may be time consuming, they fall in the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping. Noting MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) “MENTAL PROCESSES,” “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claim 13 recites similar abstract ideas.
In claim 1, the steps of: “computing,” “computing,” “selectively updating,” and “subtracting” each fall within the mathematical and/or mental concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The recited process steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Claim 13 recites recite similar abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Each of the process steps “computing,” “computing,” “selectively updating,” and “subtracting” are recited as being performed by a computer (“device 1000 may perform the CFR operations as discussed herein with respect to the transmit chain 500 as shown in FIG. 5 and discussed with respect to the process flows 600,650 as shown and FIGs. 6A-6B. To do so, the device 1000 may include processing circuitry 1002, a data source 1004, a transceiver 1006, and a memory 1008.” FIG. 10; ¶¶119-120, of the instant specification). The computer is recited at a high level of generality (“one or more processors”). The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting data and performing the recited process steps. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited process steps comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). The Examiner notes that the recited process step of “generate a transmit signal” comprises an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Applicant is thanked for their amendments to claim 1, as well as claim 13, which include the elements of “a first set of data samples associated with an input signal,” “the first set of gain factors being computed for each of the subset of the peak samples in parallel with one another as a single iteration,” “the second set of gain factors being computed iteratively per each remaining peak sample from among the peak samples,” “cause transmission of the transmit signal via a power amplifier,” and “wherein the transmit signal has data samples in the digital domain with a maximum magnitude that is less than or equal to the threshold value as a result of the CFR,” which were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the newly presented elements of “a first set of data samples associated with an input signal,” “the first set of gain factors being computed for each of the subset of the peak samples in parallel with one another as a single iteration,” and “the second set of gain factors being computed iteratively per each remaining peak sample from among the peak samples,” merely clarify the recited judicial exception(s) recited in the claim, and are not patent eligible.
Likewise, the newly presented limitations of “cause transmission of the transmit signal via a power amplifier,” and “wherein the transmit signal has data samples in the digital domain with a maximum magnitude that is less than or equal to the threshold value as a result of the CFR,” each comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements (equipment) of “a processing circuitry” (See, FIG. 10; ¶¶119-120, of the instant specification {See above}), and data comprising “a first set of data samples associated with a signal to be transmitted,” “a magnitude by which each peak sample in the first set of data samples exceeds a threshold value,” and “a subset of the peak samples” (See, for example, FIG. 5; ¶¶45-52, of the instant specification). However, these additional elements merely comprise generic conventional non-specific equipment, and computer hardware and software elements, and data/information, and is/are set forth at a highly generic level and each of which comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Claim 13 recites analogous additional elements.
The recited additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements recited in claim 1, as well as claim 13, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed method. For instance, nothing is done once the transmit signal is transmitted via a power amplifier.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 1, 13). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 13, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claim 13, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-12, and 14-23, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on October 7, 2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome the previous prior art rejections. Applicant is thanked for their amendments and arguments which were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 persists.
In regard claims 1-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner’s position and supporting remarks are presented in the rejection above.
Additionally, Applicant is thanked for their amendments to claim 1, as well as claim 13, which include the elements of “a first set of data samples associated with an input signal,” “the first set of gain factors being computed for each of the subset of the peak samples in parallel with one another as a single iteration,” “the second set of gain factors being computed iteratively per each remaining peak sample from among the peak samples,” “cause transmission of the transmit signal via a power amplifier,” and “wherein the transmit signal has data samples in the digital domain with a maximum magnitude that is less than or equal to the threshold value as a result of the CFR,” which were presented in an effort to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the newly presented elements of “a first set of data samples associated with an input signal,” “the first set of gain factors being computed for each of the subset of the peak samples in parallel with one another as a single iteration,” and “the second set of gain factors being computed iteratively per each remaining peak sample from among the peak samples,” merely clarify the recited judicial exception(s) recited in the claim, and are not patent eligible.
Likewise, the newly presented limitations of “cause transmission of the transmit signal via a power amplifier,” and “wherein the transmit signal has data samples in the digital domain with a maximum magnitude that is less than or equal to the threshold value as a result of the CFR,” each comprise an “insignificant extra-solution” {post-solution} activity(ies).
See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).
Applicant is directed to the newly released 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024, and effective on that date.
Therefore, the rejection of the independent claims, claim 1, as well as claim 13, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Similarly, the rejection of the dependent claims, claims 2-12, and 14-23, under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 extension fee 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 JEFFREY P AIELLO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4216. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JEFFREY P AIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857