DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Item 3 in the Non-Patent Literature Documents section of the information disclosure statement filed 8/22/25 has been crossed off as it does not have a publication date listed, and also is not believed to be an NPL document, but is part of the parent application.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “[a] sparse LMS method combining zero attraction penalty and attraction compensation.” However, the method claim does not contain any steps to the method, as it only states that “a sparse system identification model is established” (see line 3). Thus, as the method does not include any active steps, one skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention, and thus the claims do not comply with the enablement requirement.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites: “in the method, an estimation filter W(n) is set to make the coefficients of the estimation filter perform iterative update of equation (7) and subtract from the echo signal d(n) to obtain the final error signal e(n) to achieve echo cancellation,” but no action step is definitively recited.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites: “in the method, an estimation filter W(n) is set to make the coefficients of the estimation filter perform iterative update of equation (7) and subtract from the echo signal d(n) to obtain the final error signal e(n) to achieve echo cancellation,” but no action step is definitively recited.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 recite a method with no identifiable steps [see explanation above in rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)]. “Attempts to claim to a method or process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” [see MPEP § 2173.05(q)].
Also, claim 1 recites the limitation “the lc-LMS method” between equations (4) and (5), and claim 3 recites the limitations: “the echo self-excitation problem” (lines 2-3), “the same-frequency repeater” (line 3), “the acoustic echo phenomenon” (line 3), “the microphone” (lines 3-4), “the noise cancelling earphone” (line 4), “the main transmitting platform” (line 7), “the power amplifier” (line 8) and “the receiving terminal (line 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because although they purport to claim a method, they do not claim any active steps performed [see explanation above in rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)], and thus constitute an improper definition of a method [see MPEP § 2173.05(q) I.].
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is drawn to a “sparse LMS method combining zero attraction penalty and attraction compensation” which involves an iterative update equation of the lc-LMS method as indicated in equation (5). Claim 1 thus recites a mathematical equation/process, which is updated (see equation (7)). Claim 1 thus involves a mathematical process/concept, which is considered an abstract idea (judicial exception) according to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) I. Claims 1-2 are not found to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ore amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and thus claims 1-2 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Saeed et al. U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0074161 disclose a least mean square method for estimation in sparse adaptive networks.
Saeed et al. U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0263701 disclose an adaptive filter for system identification where a Reweighted Zero Attracting LMS (RZA-LMS) algorithm is employed.
Vetterli et al. U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0096811 disclose a method for adaptively learning a sparse impulse response of a continuous channel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Lugo whose telephone number is 571-272-3043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DAVID B LUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 12/13/2025