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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 08, 2026 has been entered.
Application Status
This case has been inherited by a new Examiner. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhao et al (“Constellation Design for Quadrature Spatial Modulation”, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 252 (2019)), May et al (“Stochastic Channel Models for Massive and XL-MIMO Systems”) and Tang et al (“Distance Distributions for Mat´ ern Cluster Processes with Application to Network Performance Analysis”, IEEE ICC 2017 Wireless Communications Symposium).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 – 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “A receiver of a communication system having a processor, non-volatile memory, at least one interface adapted to receive a signal in an communication channel, wherein the non-volatile memory stores computer program instructions which, when executed by the microprocessor, configure the receiver to perform operations comprising:…” in lines 1 – 5 should be changed to “A communication system to perform operations comprising:…” Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 8 – 10, “The communication system of…” in line 1 should be corrected to “The receiver of…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to: a method for modeling visible clusters and non-stationarities in XL-MIMO systems…”.
The claim recites of a “Matérn-cluster point process”, “in-phase spatial constellation symbol”, “quadrature spatial constellation symbol” and “mapping source data” to those symbols. These limitations describe a mathematical model and signal-mapping operations, which fall within the category of mathematical concepts, a judicial exception under the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidance. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). The claim is therefore directed, at least in part, to the abstract idea of using a mathematical model to represent and map communication data.
Although the claim recites transmit antennas and XL-MIMO systems, the additional elements do not integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application beyond using it as a tool for modeling and mapping data. The limitation of “configuring a plurality of transmit antennas” is recited at a high level of generality. The recited “mapping source data” is a generic data-processing step. The recitation that the Matérn-cluster point process “defines the area where antenna arrays are embedded” merely applies the abstract mathematical model to a field of use, namely wireless communications. The claim does not recite of a specific improvement to antenna hardware, a specific improvement to wireless transmission protocols, a specific improvement to channel estimation, spectral efficiency, or interference reduction, or any particular technical mechanism by which the Matérn-cluster point process improves the functioning of the system. Instead, the claim uses a mathematical model to characterize antenna arrangement and signal mapping at a high level. Mere invocation of a technological environment such as XL-MIMO does not, by itself, integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The claim also fails to include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The recited transmit antennas, XL-MIMO system, and mapping operations are conventional field-of-use limitations and generic implementation steps. The claim merely instructs one to apply the mathematical model in a communications context without providing an unconventional technical solution. The claim does not recite any non-conventional or non-generic arrangement of hardware or signal-processing steps that would transform the abstract mathematical concept into patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
This claim is analogous to claims found ineligible in cases involving abstract data analysis and mathematical modeling, because the core of the claim is the use of a mathematical process to organize information about a physical system, rather than a concrete technological improvement to that system. By contrast, the claim does not recite the kind of specific technological improvement found eligible in cases such as Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), because it lacks a particularized technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical modeling and data mapping in a wireless communication context, and the claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2 – 4 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is directed to: a communication system…”.
The claim recites of a “Matérn-cluster point process”, “in-phase spatial constellation symbol”, “quadrature spatial constellation symbol” and “mapping source data” to those symbols. These limitations describe a mathematical model and signal-mapping operations, which fall within the category of mathematical concepts, a judicial exception under the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidance. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). The claim is therefore directed, at least in part, to the abstract idea of using a mathematical model to represent and map communication data.
The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations of the "a communication system having a processor, non-volatile memory, at least one interface adapted to receive a signal in a communication channel, wherein the non-volatile memory stores computer program instructions which, when executed by the microprocessor, configure the receiver to perform operations" constitute applying an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer. The additional elements do not integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application beyond using it as a tool for modeling and mapping data. The limitation of “configuring a plurality of transmit antennas” is recited at a high level of generality. The recited “mapping source data” is a generic data-processing step. The recitation that the Matérn-cluster point process “defines the area where antenna arrays are embedded” merely applies the abstract mathematical model to a field of use, namely wireless communications. The claim does not recite of a specific improvement to antenna hardware, a specific improvement to wireless transmission protocols, a specific improvement to channel estimation, spectral efficiency, or interference reduction, or any particular technical mechanism by which the Matérn-cluster point process improves the functioning of the system. Instead, the claim uses a mathematical model to characterize antenna arrangement and signal mapping at a high level. Mere invocation of a technological environment such as a communication system does not, by itself, integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The claim also fails to include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The recited transmit antennas, communication system, and mapping operations are conventional field-of-use limitations and generic implementation steps. The claim merely instructs one to apply the mathematical model in a communications context without providing an unconventional technical solution. The claim does not recite any non-conventional or non-generic arrangement of hardware or signal-processing steps that would transform the abstract mathematical concept into patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
This claim is analogous to claims found ineligible in cases involving abstract data analysis and mathematical modeling, because the core of the claim is the use of a mathematical process to organize information about a physical system, rather than a concrete technological improvement to that system. By contrast, the claim does not recite the kind of specific technological improvement found eligible in cases such as Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), because it lacks a particularized technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical modeling and data mapping in a wireless communication context, and the claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 8 – 10 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 4 and 10 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 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 4 recites of “wherein process working parallel to the greedy detections, to ensure valid estimates of the index vectors from the given finite set of index vectors are produced at the output of the method, and to apply interference cancellation with the confirmed values, while keeping track of which indices have been retrieved from the greedy selections, before every iteration a check is performed whether from the currently decoded indices, a final confirmation can be made, if the final confirmation cannot be made, remove the interference by the previous greedy selection and the next iteration is proceeded.”
MPEP 2164 2164.01(a) in the section titled “Undue Experimentation Factors” recites “There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.”
On the issue of the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the disclosure only describes the recited iterative interference cancellation loop in Paragraph 0027 of the printed publication. Many of the factors, such as the recited “greedy detections”, “index vectors”, “out of the method”, “confirmed values”, “decoded indices” haven’t been described in Applicants disclosure. Therefore, with all these factors being undefined and unknown, the inventor hasn’t provided a clear and detailed direction for one of skilled in the art to make or use the invention.
On the issue of the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, the recited iterative interference cancellation loop as described in Applicants disclosure lacks of providing clear instructions to lower the amount of required extra testing. The recited factors being undefined and unknown, the inventor hasn’t provided a clear description and guidance for one of skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Examiner determines the level of experimentation required to make and use the iterative interference cancellation loop is excessive and the claim is not enabling for one having ordinary skill in the art of computer science.
The same rejection has been applied to claim 10.
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.
Claims 3 – 4 and 9 – 10 are 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the positions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the antennas index" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the in-phase spatial constellation symbol estimates…" in lines 2 – 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "their independent decoding…" in line 4. It is unclear what "their independent decoding " refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the greedy detections" in lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the index vectors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the confirmed values" in lines 3 – 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites of “an output of the method” in line 3. It is not clear to what is referred as an output of the method. It is not clear where the output is coming from. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " while keeping track of which indices have been retrieved from the greedy selections" in line 5. It is not clear whether the greedy selections correspond to the recited greedy selection of claim 3 or to different selections? The recited greedy selection of claim 3 corresponds to a single iteration?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the currently decoded indices" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the positions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the antennas index" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the in-phase spatial constellation symbol estimates…" in lines 2 – 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "their independent decoding…" in line 4. It is unclear what "their independent decoding " refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the greedy detections" in lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the index vectors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the confirmed values" in lines 3 – 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites of “an output of a method” in line 3. It is not clear to what is referred as an output of a method. It is not clear where the output is coming from. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " while keeping track of which indices have been retrieved from the greedy selections" in line 5. It is not clear whether the greedy selections correspond to the recited greedy selection of claim 9 or to different selections? The recited greedy selection of claim 9 corresponds to a single iteration?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the currently decoded indices" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (“Constellation Design for Quadrature Spatial Modulation”, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 252 (2019)) in view of May et al (“Stochastic Channel Models for Massive and XL-MIMO Systems”) and further in view of Tang et al (“Distance Distributions for Mat´ ern Cluster Processes with Application to Network Performance Analysis”, IEEE ICC 2017 Wireless Communications Symposium).
Re claim 1, Zhao teaches of a method for modeling visible clusters and non-stationarities in XL-MIMO systems, the method comprising: configuring a plurality of transmit antennas (1=1,2, , Nt, Fig.1) to each represent an in-phase spatial constellation symbol within an in-phase spatial constellation (Ai, Fig.1), and a quadrature spatial constellation symbol within a quadrature spatial constellation (Bi, Fig.1) (Page 2), mapping source data to the in-phase spatial constellation symbols (sRE, Fig.1) and the quadrature spatial constellation symbols represented by the plurality of transmit antennas (sIM, Fig.1) (Page 2). However, Zhao does not specifically teach of wherein the Matérn-cluster point process, which models randomly located clusters within a given area, defines the area where antenna arrays are embedded.
May teaches of a method for modeling visible clusters and non-stationarities in extra large multiple-input multiple output (XL-MIMO) systems (Abstract and page 9), the method comprising: cluster point process, which models randomly located clusters within a given area, defines the area where antenna arrays are embedded (Pages 9 – 11 and Figures 3 – 4).
Tang teaches of a cluster point process being a Matern cluster point process (Abstract and Pages 1 – 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed a cluster point process to provide a realistic spatial modeling. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cluster point process be a Matern cluster point process to accurately model spatial aggregation.
Claims 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, May and Tang in view of Kamilov et al (“Learning optimal nonlinearities for iterative thresholding algorithms”, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc., 2016)
Re claim 2, Zhao, May and Tang teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of a modification to an iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) via boxing with range limiting and hard-thresholding is proceeded.
Kamilov teaches of a modification to the iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) (Abstract, Page 1) via boxing with range limiting and hard-thresholding is proceeded (equation 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a modification to an iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) via boxing with range limiting and hard-thresholding to provide simplicity for solving linear inverse problems.
Re claim 3, Zhao, May and Tang teach all the limitations of claim 1 as well as Zhao teaches of using a greedy selection of the positions of the antennas index (selecting an antenna index vector, Page 2) and the in-phase spatial constellation symbol estimates and quadrature spatial constellation symbol estimates (equation 3), and their independent decoding of the corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits is determined (decoding the antenna indexes and the modulated symbols, Page 3). However, Zhao, May and Tang do not specifically teach of boxed-hard iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA).
Kamilov teaches of a boxed-hard iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) (Abstract, Page 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a boxed-hard iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm to provide simplicity for solving linear inverse problems.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, May and Tang in view of Xu et al (US 9,490,938).
Re claim 4, Zhao, May and Tang teach all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein process working parallel to greedy detections, to ensure valid estimates of index vectors from a given finite set of index vectors are produced as an output and to apply interference cancellation with confirmed values, while keeping track of which indices have been retrieved from the greedy selections, before every iteration check whether from currently decoded indices, a final confirmation can be made; if it cannot be made, remove the interference by a previous greedy selection and make the next iteration.
Xu teaches of a process working parallel to greedy detections (Figures 2 – 3 and Col 1, Lines 47 – 67), to ensure valid estimates of index vectors from a given finite set of index vectors are produced as an output (#206, Fig.2, Col 8, Lines 63 – 67 to Col 9, Lines 1 – 22) and to apply interference cancellation with confirmed values (#214, Fig.2), while keeping track of which indices have been retrieved from the greedy selections, before every iteration check whether from currently decoded indices (#216, Fig.2), a final confirmation can be made; if it cannot be made, remove the interference by a previous greedy selection and make the next iteration (#216, Fig.2) (Col 11, Lines 1 – 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed interference cancellation for enhancing signal for the received signal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of May in view of Tang and further in view of Arickan et al (US 2019/0239140).
Re claim 5, Zhao teaches of a receiver of a communication system (Fig.1) to perform operations comprising: configuring a plurality of transmit antennas (1=1,2, , Nt, Fig.1) to each represent an in-phase spatial constellation symbol within an in-phase spatial constellation (Ai, Fig.1), and a quadrature spatial constellation symbol within a quadrature spatial constellation (Bi, Fig.1) (Page 2), mapping source data to the in-phase spatial constellation symbols (sRE, Fig.1) and the quadrature spatial constellation symbols represented by the plurality of transmit antennas (sIM, Fig.1) (Page 2). However, Zhao does not specifically teach of wherein the Matérn-cluster point process, which models randomly located clusters within a given area, defines the area where antenna arrays are embedded. Zhao does not specifically teach of the receiver of a communication system having a processor, volatile and/or non-volatile memory, at least one interface adapted to receive a signal in an communication channel, wherein the non-volatile memory stores computer program instructions which, when executed by the microprocessor, configure the receiver to perform communication.
May teaches of a method for modeling visible clusters and non-stationarities in extra large multiple-input multiple output (XL-MIMO) systems (Abstract and page 9), the method comprising: cluster point process, which models randomly located clusters within a given area, defines the area where antenna arrays are embedded (Pages 9 – 11 and Figures 3 – 4).
Tang teaches of a cluster point process being a Matern cluster point process (Abstract and Pages 1 – 3).
Arickan teaches of a receiver of a communication system having a processor, volatile and/or non-volatile memory, at least one interface adapted to receive a signal in an communication channel, wherein the non-volatile memory stores computer program instructions which, when executed by the microprocessor, configure the receiver to perform communication (Fig.2 and Paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed a cluster point process to provide a realistic spatial modeling. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cluster point process be a Matern cluster point process to accurately model spatial aggregation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the receiver comprise a processor and a non-volatile memory configured to store program instructions to be executed by the processor for instant-on capability, lower energy use, and high data safety.
Claims 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, May, Tang and Arickan in view of Kamilov.
Re claim 8, Zhao, May, Tang and Arickan teach all the limitations of claim 5 except of a modification to an iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) via boxing with range limiting and hard-thresholding is proceeded.
Kamilov teaches of a modification to the iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) (Abstract, Page 1) via boxing with range limiting and hard-thresholding is proceeded (equation 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a modification to an iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) via boxing with range limiting and hard-thresholding to provide simplicity for solving linear inverse problems.
Re claim 9, Zhao, May, Tang and Arickan teach all the limitations of claim 5 as well as Zhao teaches of using a greedy selection of the positions of the antennas index (selecting an antenna index vector, Page 2) and the in-phase spatial constellation symbol estimates and quadrature spatial constellation symbol estimates (equation 3), and their independent decoding of the corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits is determined (decoding the antenna indexes and the modulated symbols, Page 3). However, Zhao, May, Tang and Arickan do not specifically teach of boxed-hard iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA).
Kamilov teaches of a boxed-hard iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) (Abstract, Page 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a boxed-hard iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm to provide simplicity for solving linear inverse problems.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, May, Tang and Arickan in view of Xu.
Re claim 10, Zhao, May, Tang and Arickan teach all the limitations of claim 5 except of wherein process working parallel to greedy detections, to ensure valid estimates of index vectors from a given finite set of index vectors are produced as an output and to apply interference cancellation with confirmed values, while keeping track of which indices have been retrieved from the greedy selections, before every iteration check whether from currently decoded indices, a final confirmation can be made; if it cannot be made, remove the interference by a previous greedy selection and make the next iteration.
Xu teaches of a process working parallel to greedy detections (Figures 2 – 3 and Col 1, Lines 47 – 67), to ensure valid estimates of index vectors from a given finite set of index vectors are produced as an output (#206, Fig.2, Col 8, Lines 63 – 67 to Col 9, Lines 1 – 22) and to apply interference cancellation with confirmed values (#214, Fig.2), while keeping track of which indices have been retrieved from the greedy selections, before every iteration check whether from currently decoded indices (#216, Fig.2), a final confirmation can be made; if it cannot be made, remove the interference by a previous greedy selection and make the next iteration (#216, Fig.2) (Col 11, Lines 1 – 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed interference cancellation for enhancing signal for the received signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights