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 .
The amendment filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent and amended.
The IDS(s) submitted on 10/22/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, filed on page 8, Applicant argues with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under USC 101, Applicant argues that given now K NZ recited in the independent claims have been amended to just be K and Applicant argues the fact that K being a symbol/variable makes the rejections under 35 USC 101 moot. Applicant also indicates in the Remarks on page 8 that K NZ is simply an integer variable and does not represent a mathematical forum.
Examiner’s Response : Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s position on replacing K NZ with K will change the rejection of claims 1-20 under USC 101.
A close review of the rejection under USC 101 shows the mathematical concept including mathematical formulas and calculation “…a first parameter, a sum of X and Y is equal to K NZ - v, K NZ is a total quantity of weighting coefficients correspondingly reported at all of the spatial layers, v is a quantity of the spatial layers, K NZ is an integer, and v is a positive integer..”
Now replacing K NZ with K to overcome the 112(b) rejection will reduce shows the mathematical concept including mathematical formulas and calculation to
X+Y = K – v and is still a mathematical concept taking integer values.
To overcome the rejection on record under USC 101, Applicant needs to follow the rejections under USC 101 in Steps 2A and 2B. Either Applicant has to show the mathematical concept in Step 2A is integrated into a Practical Application or in Step 2B explain the claim as a whole is inventive given Applicant’s admission indicating the different equations are well known mathematical formulas in the prior art and their use does not constitute an improvement of the prior art and is not an inventive concept.
The amendment overcomes the 112(b) rejection previously made. However, the examiner notes that Applicant removed the variables N and Z from the claimed equation because the specification does not explain what N and Z are and they are assumed to be a variable
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea that recites mathematical concepts including without significantly more. The independent claim(s) 1, 7, and 14 recite(s) “…a first parameter, a sum of X and Y is equal to K - v, K is a total quantity of weighting coefficients correspondingly reported at all of the spatial layers, v is a quantity of the spatial layers, K is an integer, and v is a positive integer..” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent claims recite generating indicating information and sending the indication information but do not involve the abstract idea involving the equations K and K - v . The independent claim(s) 1, 7, and 14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the combination of additional elements or steps of generating and sending the information does not use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 7 (both independent claims recite identical limitations as part of a method claim in claim 1 and as part of a transmitting apparatus in clam 7):
STEP
ANALYSIS
1. Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recite a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 7 recites a processor and memory and is an apparatus claim.
2A. Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claims recite mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas and calculation. Namely, “…a first parameter, a sum of X and Y is equal to K - v, K is a total quantity of weighting coefficients correspondingly reported at all of the spatial layers, v is a quantity of the spatial layers, K is an integer, and v is a positive integer..” are mathematical formulas/equations and therefore judicial exception is recited.
2A. Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.. The claims recite two other additional elements/limitations and are the steps of generating indication information and sending the indication information. The steps of generating and sending the information are insignificant extra-solution activity because the combination of additional elements or steps of generating and sending the information does not use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application. Consequently neither the steps of generating indication information nor the step of sending the indication information can result in integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Hence both claims 1 and 7 are ineligible under Step 2A prong 2.
2B. Claim provides an inventive concept?
No. The claim taken as a whole with the abstract idea reciting “…a first parameter, a sum of X and Y is equal to K - v, K is a total quantity of weighting coefficients correspondingly reported at all of the spatial layers, v is a quantity of the spatial layers, K is an integer, and v is a positive integer..” is not an inventive step per Applicant’s admission in the background section of Applicant’s published specification as described in paragraphs 8-9. K - v, K are well known mathematical formulas in the prior art and their use does not constitute an improvement of the prior art and is not an inventive concept. Therefore claims 1 and 7 are still ineligible in step 2B too.
Regarding independent claim 14 ,
STEP
ANALYSIS
1. Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim14 recites a processor and memory and is a receiving apparatus claim.
2A. Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claims recite mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas and calculation. Namely, “…a first parameter, a sum of X and Y is equal to K - v, K is a total quantity of weighting coefficients correspondingly reported at all of the spatial layers, v is a quantity of the spatial layers, K is an integer, and v is a positive integer..” are mathematical formulas/equations and therefore judicial exception is recited.
2A. Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.. The claims recite two other additional elements/limitations and are the steps of receiving indication information and determining a weight coefficient based on the indication information. The steps of receiving indication information and determining a weight coefficient based on the indication information are insignificant extra-solution activity because the combination of additional elements or steps of receiving indication information and determining a weight coefficient based on the indication information. do not use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application. The mathematical formula is used to determine the parameter and the step of determining the weight does not use the abstract idea based on the mathematical formula. Consequently neither the steps of receiving indication information nor the step of determining the weight can result in integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Hence claim 14 is ineligible under Step 2A prong 2.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 15 further recite the mathematical step to calculate the first parameter equations [ K / 2] - v and do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application with additional elements (Step 2A prong 2) and when the claims are viewed as a whole nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive step) to the abstract idea of mathematical formulas (Step 2B). Therefor the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 16 further recite the mathematical step to calculate the first parameter equations [ K / 2] – v under different conditions and do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application with additional elements (Step 2A prong 2) and when the claims are viewed as a whole nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive step) to the abstract idea of mathematical formulas (Step 2B). Therefor the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 17 further recite the mathematical step to calculate the first parameter equations [ K / 2] – v under different conditions and do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application with additional elements (Step 2A prong 2) and when the claims are viewed as a whole nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive step) to the abstract idea of mathematical formulas (Step 2B). Therefor the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 18 further recite the mathematical step to calculate the first parameter equations [ K / 2] under different conditions and do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application with additional elements (Step 2A prong 2) and when the claims are viewed as a whole nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive step) to the abstract idea of mathematical formulas (Step 2B). Therefor the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 19 further recite the mathematical step to calculate the first parameter equations [ K / 2] – v under different conditions and do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application with additional elements (Step 2A prong 2) and when the claims are viewed as a whole nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive step) to the abstract idea of mathematical formulas (Step 2B). Therefor the claims are ineligible.
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 20 further recite the mathematical step to calculate the first parameter equations [ K / 2] – v under different conditions and do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application with additional elements (Step 2A prong 2) and when the claims are viewed as a whole nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive step) to the abstract idea of mathematical formulas (Step 2B). Therefor the claims are ineligible.
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 HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474