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 amendment filed on February 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-20, and 22-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-20, and 22-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-8, 10-20, and 22-30 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.
Amended independent claims 1 and 24, recite “wherein the feedback indicates semantic inference performance associated with the set of real-valued numbers” and independent claims 13 and 30 recite “wherein the feedback indicates semantic inference performance associated with the attempt to infer the information from set of real-valued numbers.” However, the present application, as filed, fails to disclose anything related to feedback that indicates semantic inference performance.
Paragraph [0111] of the specification of the present application appears to be the most relevant to the abovementioned claim limitations, and it describes “[i]n some aspects, the receiving device may provide feedback to the transmitting device that the receiving device cannot infer the information from the received signal.” However, feedback that information cannot be inferred from the received signal does not in any manner describe that the feedback is indicating semantic inference performance. In fact, nothing has been found in the application that describes a process to determine “semantic inference performance” of transmitted information and then indicating it as feedback to the transmitting device. Moreover, the term “semantic inference performance” or “semantic inference” is also wholly absent from the application.
Accordingly, in view of the present application’s failure to disclose the amended subject matter, independent claims 1, 13, 24, and 30 contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and thus, fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-20, 22, 23, and 25-29 depend from one of the independent claims 1, 13, 24, and 30, and accordingly, fail to comply with the written description requirement for at least the same reasons as mentioned above with respect to claims 1, 13, 24, and 30.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights