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 .
Examiner’s Note – Case status
This case has been inherited by a new Examiner.
The previous grounds of rejection under 112(b) – Omitting essential elements, are withdrawn.
The following action is a non-final rejection to address the omitted USC 101 abstract idea rejection and to address USC 112 concerns present in the claimed limitations.
Please note that claims 11-14 have been reviewed for rejection under USC 112(d), but USC 112(b) was interpreted to be more appropriate. There is nothing in the claim language that clearly links how these limitations relate to or further limit the claimed operations being performed in the independent claim. However, the basic claim construction is found to meet the minimum of the requirements to avoid a 112(d) rejection, but do fail to meet the requirements for 112(b) (see rejection below).
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 7, 10-14 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered USC 101 abstract idea, the below noted USC 112 rejections and the Lauer reference (US 20100311432). Detailed rejections follow.
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 7, 10-14 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 7 recites the limitation "the microprocessor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “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 a communication channel, wherein the non-volatile memory stores computer program instructions which, when executed by the microprocessor, configure the receiver to perform operations comprising”. The noted limitations render claim 7 with a concern of indefiniteness. There is an interpretation of the claim wherein, because of the use of the term ‘or’, that there is no inclusion on the ‘non-volatile memory’. In which case, there is then no inclusion of the program, which is indicated to be stored on the non-volatile memory, and then in following there is then no functional steps performed. The claim then simply becomes ““A receiver of a communication system having a processor, volatile memory, at least one interface adapted to receive a signal in a communication channel”, with no other aspect of the claim required. The claim then lacks a transitional phrase, positive steps, antecedent relationships to the dependent claims, etc. This limitation must be corrected, to actively and positively include the portion of the memory with the program. Suggestions are to remove the term ‘or’, remove the term ‘volatile and/or’, or any other amendment which removes a BRI that eliminates all of the claimed functional limitations. For the sake of clarity of the record and compact prosecution, the numerous issues are summarized here without explicit detail into each issue created by this BRI of the claimed limitations.
Claim 7 recites “receiving signals and initialization of a channel estimation; performing a soft interference cancel check”, these limitations are rejected as indefinite. First the scope of the claim is not made clear as to if this is meant to be drawn towards ‘starting channel estimation’, which is how the claim is worded, or if it is meant to mean to establish as initial channel estimation value, as the drawings disclose. Second, it is not rendered clear in the claim language what value or element the ‘performing a soft interference cancel check’ is happening to. Clarity needs to be provided via amendment as to what is being claimed by ‘initialization’ as well as what the ‘performing’ is being done to.
Claim 7 recites “determining whether a condition of reaching a maximum is fulfilled whereby, if the condition of reaching the maximum fulfilled check result is negative, soft interference cancel check is performed and whereby, if the condition of reaching the maximum fulfilled check result is positive, performance of the operations ends”, this limitation is indefinite as this element has been previously established and an appropriate antecedent relationship has not been established. This limitation should clearly indicate an additional iteration of the check or a clearly labeled different check process.
Claim 7 recites “determining whether a condition of reaching a maximum is fulfilled”, this limitation is indefinite as there is no clear scope for the determination established in the claimed language. Following the disclosure the claim is drawn towards an iterative calculation until it reaches a maximum number of iterations, however the language used has created an ambiguous BRI for the claims that renders them indefinite in light of the fact that any maximum could be considered here, and the value of what element exactly is being reviewed for reaching a maximum. The claims should clearly define the scope of the claimed invention which is not established or accomplished in this limitation.
Claim 10 recites ‘wherein after ending a preamble and uplink data transmission via a grant-free random access is proceeded’. This limitation is rejected as indefinite for creating antecedent confusion. The term ‘after ending’ appears to be in relation to ‘performance of the operation ends’, but a clear antecedent relationship has not been established.
Claim 10 recites ‘wherein after ending a preamble and uplink data transmission via a grant-free random access is proceeded’. This limitation is rejected as indefinite. By placing ‘is proceeded’ at the end of the claim, the applicant has created unnecessary ambiguity as to what is ‘proceeded’ in the prior claim language. To more clearly state the intention of the invention, an amendment to the nature of ‘wherein after ending, proceeding with a preamble and uplink data transmission via a grant-free random access’, to clearly state the intention of the claim limitations.
Claim 12 recites ‘The receiver of claim 7 characterized by a modification to an iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (ISTA) via boxing with range limiting and hard- thresholding is proceeded.’ This limitation is rejected as indefinite. The wording of this limitation has failed to create a clear antecedent relationship of understanding as to how the ‘characterized’ step is integrated into the claimed receiver. There is not a clear relationship between the processing and this step, and there is not a clear relationship as to where or what is performing this step. There is further not a clear relationship as to how the receiver being characterized relates to any claimed limitation. Further, by placing ‘is proceeded’ at the end of the claim, the applicant has created unnecessary ambiguity as to what is ‘proceeded’ in the prior claim language. How this claim further limits the independent claim 7 needs to be clarified via amendment.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the positions", “the antennas index” in line 2; and “the symbol estimates” in lines 2-3; and “the corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected as indefinite for creating antecedent confusion, reciting ‘wherein process working in parallel’, it is unclear what ‘process’ and how this relates to the independent claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the given finite set” in line 2; “the output”, “the method” of line 3; “the interference” in lines 6-7 and “the next iteration” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites ‘the previous greedy selection’, this limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the intention of the design is to eliminate a most recent value, the immediately previous value, or all values from greedy selection.
Claim 14 recites “before every iteration a check is performed whether from currently decoded indices”, this limitation is indefinite as it fails to clearly articulate what is being checked.
Claim 14 recites ‘… and the next iteration is proceeded’. This limitation is rejected as indefinite. By placing ‘is proceeded’ at the end of the claim, the applicant has created unnecessary ambiguity as to what is ‘proceeded’ in the prior claim language. To more clearly state the intention of the invention, an amendment to the nature of ‘and proceeding with the next iteration’, to clearly state the intention of the claim limitations.
Claims 11-14 are rejected as being indefinite as it is unclear how the claimed limitations are integrated or incorporated in the receiver of claim 7. There is nothing in the claim language that clarifies how these limitations relate to or further limit the claimed operations being performed. See note above about 112(d) consideration.
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 7, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (both mental process and mathematical concept issues) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 7
Step 1: Yes, the claim is a machine (a receiver)
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim limitations:
“…performing a soft interference cancel check, whereby, if the soft interference cancel check result is negative, the calculation of residual mean and variance is performed and whereby, if the soft interference cancel check result is positive, the extrinsic mean and variance is calculated directly; calculating the extrinsic mean and variance, whereby, if the soft interference cancel check result is negative, the calculation of residual mean and variance is used; calculating tentative estimates, whereby the calculation of tentative estimation includes activity factors calculation; determining whether a condition of reaching a maximum is fulfilled whereby, if the condition of reaching the maximum fulfilled check result is negative, soft interference cancel check is performed and whereby, if the condition of reaching the maximum fulfilled check result is positive, performance of the operations ends” recite a Mental Process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Further the claim limitations:
“…whereby, if the soft interference cancel check result is positive, the extrinsic mean and variance is calculated directly; calculating the extrinsic mean and variance, whereby, if the soft interference cancel check result is negative, the calculation of residual mean and variance is used; calculating tentative estimates, whereby the calculation of tentative estimation includes activity factors calculation…” additionally recite a Mathematical Concept (mathematical relationships and calculations).
Step 2A, Prong 2: No. 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, volatile and/or 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 (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations invoke a generic computer/electronic devices merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
-The additional limitation of “receiving signals and initialization of a channel estimation;” represent mere data gathering and are insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). This limitation represents collecting data and starting the data processing.
- When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any additional meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Step 2B: No. The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. In the evaluating of the per-solution activity from Step 2A, Prong 2; the collection of data and the starting and the starting of the intended functional processing of the claim is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activities based on this process simply incorporating the observation of data communicated over a network which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (communication channels) using a generic/generalized computer/device.
Dependent claims 10-14 fail to recited additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites additional elements related to the performing of a transmission, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 11-14 represent additional recitations of a Mental Process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and additionally recite a Mathematical Calculation (mathematical relationships and calculations), as each claim is drawn to the simple use or modification of algorithms to manipulate data, which could be done as a mental process performed with a generic computer, as well as reciting the performing of mathematical calculations and manipulation of mathematical relationships. There are no additional limitations recited for the multi prong review steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lauer (US Pub 20100311432).
Re claim 7, Lauer discloses a receiver (Fig 2 receiver elements of radio 60; Par 50) of a communication system (Fig 2 el 60, Par 50) having a processor (Fig 2 el 64, Par 50), volatile and/or non-volatile memory (Fig 2 el 66, Par 50), at least one interface adapted to receive a signal in a communication channel (Fig 2 el 74 and antenna elements, Par 50), wherein the non-volatile memory stores computer program instructions which, when executed by the microprocessor, configure the receiver to perform operations comprising:
receiving signals and initialization of a channel estimation; performing a soft interference cancel check, whereby, if the soft interference cancel check result is negative, the calculation of residual mean and variance is performed and whereby, if the soft interference cancel check result is positive, the extrinsic mean and variance is calculated directly; calculating the extrinsic mean and variance, whereby, if the soft interference cancel check result is negative, the calculation of residual mean and variance is used; calculating tentative estimates, whereby the calculation of tentative estimation includes activity factors calculation; determining whether a condition of reaching a maximum is fulfilled whereby, if the condition of reaching the maximum fulfilled check result is negative, soft interference cancel check is performed and whereby, if the condition of reaching the maximum fulfilled check result is positive, performance of the operations ends.
Re claims 10-14, as these claims are dependent on claim 7, and are interpreted to further limit the claimed program operations, as they further limit limitations without patentable weight in the given BRI, these claims are further rejected in light of Lauer and the applied rejection to claim 7.
Note: This rejection under USC 102 is to address the above noted issue wherein the inclusion of the ‘and/or’ limitation allows for a BRI that does not require the ‘non-volatile memory’ and therefore does not require the consideration of the elements assigned to said memory. In this case, all legal interpretations of the claim language must be considered to provide rationale for required amendments to the claims to better recite the scope of the intended invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights