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 .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 01/21/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“XL-MIMO” in claim 1 should be spelled out, since it is the first introduction.
Claims 2-4 are also objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim.
Claim 5 recites “an communication channel” should be “a communication channel”.
Claims 8-10 are also objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5,8-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the Matern-cluster point process" in page 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA)" in page 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the boxed-hard iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA)" in page 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 further recites “the symbol estimates”. Clarification required which “symbol estimates” Is it “in-phase spatial constellation symbol” or “quadrature spatial constellation symbol” as recited in claim 1?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the given finite set..." in page 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation "the output..." in page 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation "the interference..." in page 4.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation "the previous greedy selection..." in page 4.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation "the next iteration..." in page 4.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the microprocessor" in page 4.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation "the Matern-cluster point process" in page 4.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA)" in page 4.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the boxed-hard iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA)" in page 4.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 further recites “the symbol estimates”. Clarification required which “symbol estimates” Is it “in-phase spatial constellation symbol” or “quadrature spatial constellation symbol” as recited in claim 5?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the given finite set..." in page 5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation "the output of the method" in page 5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for both limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation "the interference..." in page 5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation "the previous greedy selection..." in page 5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation "the next iteration..." in page 5.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5,8-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. In addition, the claims objection needed to be overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Reclaims 1-4
Prior art reference failed to teach or disclose modeling visible clusters and non- stationarities in XL-MIMO systems, wherein the Matern-cluster point process, which models randomly located clusters within a given area, defines the area where antenna arrays are embedded.
Reclaims 5,8-10
Prior art reference failed to teach or disclose wherein the Matern-cluster point process, which models randomly located clusters within a given area, defines the area where antenna arrays are embedded.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art reference Meslelh (et al. US 9,813,278) discloses quadrature spatial modulation system, wherein the system includes plurality of antennas represented in a spatial constellation symbol, and transmit unit for mapping source data to at least one spatial constellation and/or inphase component or quadrature component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHEL GUARINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Wang S. Hannah can be reached on 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.
/RAHEL GUARINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights