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 .
Request for Continued Examination
The request filed on 7/15/2026, for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on 7/15/2026 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13 recites “operating a calculation with highly spares received signal is done,” but this language is awkward. Also, this does not appear to match with the supporting language of the specification (see para. 0020(1) of the substitute specification of 4/30/2026, which appears to suggest that the combination of generalizing Golden code and spatial modulation enables operating with a highly sparse received signal).
Claim 7 is similarly objected to.
Claim 4, line 7 appears to end with a period, but should be a comma.
Claim 14, line 7, appears to end with a period, but should be a comma.
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 3-4, 6, 13-14, and 16 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, line 2 recites “iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm via boxing-hard (ISTA),” but it is unclear whether “boxing-hard (ISTA)” refers to “boxing, range limiting, and hard-thresholding” as recited in claim 2, or to some other feature. Furthermore, while the specification mentions “boxing-hard,” it does not define or explain what this term means. Also, the inclusion of the abbreviation (ISTA) after “boxing hard” in claim 3 seems to conflict with the usage of the same abbreviation (ISTA) following “iterative shrinkage-threshold algorithm (ISTA)” in line 2 of claim 2. Therefore, it is also unclear whether the “ISTA” abbreviation refers to “iterative shrinkage-threshold algorithm” as in claim 2 or “iterative shrinkage-threshold algorithm via boxing-hard” as in claim 3.
Claim 3, lines 3-4 recite “the antennas index and the symbol estimates, and their independent decoding of the corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits,” but the language here is unclear and indefinite.
The “antenna index” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
The “symbol estimates” also lacks antecedent basis.
In the portion of lines 3-4 reciting “their independent decoding” it is unclear whether the pronoun “their” refers to the preceding “antennas index and the symbol estimates,” the “corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits” on line 4, or to some other feature.
Claim 4, lines 1-2 recite “process working parallel to the greedy detections,” but the language is unclear and indefinite.
It is unclear whether “process working parallel” refers to “apply interference cancellation with indices” on lines 3-4, or to some other process/feature.
The recited “greedy detections” lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear whether this refers to the “greedy selection” of claim 3, line 2, or some other feature.
Claim 4, line 2 recites “the index vectors” and “the given finite set of index vectors” but both of these limitations lack antecedent basis.
Claim 4, line 8 recites “if it cannot be made, remove the interference by the previous greedy selection and make the next iteration,” but the language is unclear and indefinite.
It is unclear whether the language “if it cannot be made” refers to the “final confirmation” of line 6, or to some other feature.
The “interference” of line 8 lacks antecedent basis.
The “previous greedy selection” of line 8 also lacks antecedent basis, and it is also unclear whether this refers to “the greedy selection” of claim 3, line 2, the “greedy detection” of claim 4, line 2, or some other feature.
Claim 6, line 2 recites “the signals” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the signals” of line 2 refer to the “highly sparse received signal” in claim 1, line 13, or to some other feature.
Claim 13, line 2 recites “iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm via boxing-hard (ISTA),” but it is unclear whether “boxing-hard (ISTA)” refers to “boxing, range limiting, and hard-thresholding” as recited in claim 12, or to some other feature. Furthermore, while the specification mentions “boxing-hard,” it does not define or explain what this term means. Also, the inclusion of the abbreviation (ISTA) after “boxing hard” in claim 13 seems to conflict with the usage of the same abbreviation (ISTA) following “iterative shrinkage-threshold algorithm (ISTA)” in line 2 of claim 12. Therefore, it is also unclear whether the “ISTA” abbreviation refers to “iterative shrinkage-threshold algorithm” as in claim 12 or “iterative shrinkage-threshold algorithm via boxing-hard” as in claim 13.
Claim 13, lines 3-4 recite “the antennas index and the symbol estimates, and their independent decoding of the corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits,” but the language here is unclear and indefinite.
The “antennas index” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
The “symbol estimates” also lacks antecedent basis.
In the portion of lines 3-4 reciting “their independent decoding” it is unclear whether the pronoun “their” refers to the preceding “antennas index and the symbol estimates,” the “corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits” on line 4, or to some other feature.
Claim 14, lines 1-2 recite “process working parallel to the greedy detections,” but the language is unclear and indefinite.
It is unclear whether “process working parallel” refers to “apply interference cancellation with indices” on lines 3-4, or to some other process/feature.
The recited “greedy detections” lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear whether this refers to the “greedy selection” of claim 3, line 2, or some other feature.
Claim 14, line 8 recites “if it cannot be made, remove the interference by a previous greedy selection and make the next iteration,” but the language is unclear and indefinite.
It is unclear whether the language “if it cannot be made” refers to the “final confirmation” of line 6, or to some other feature.
The “interference” of line 8 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 16, lines 1-2 recites “the signals” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the signals” of lines 1-2 refer to the “signal” of claim 7, line 2, the “highly sparse received signal” in claim 7, line 13, or to some other feature.
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 1-4, 6-7, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 7 recite(s):
“configuring the plurality of transmit antennas to each represent an in-phase spatial constellation symbol” (mental process);
“mapping source data to the in-phase spatial constellation symbols” (mental process);
“applying an optimal and scalable quadrature spatial modulation scheme (OS-QSM)” (mental process/mathematical concept);
“generalizing of Golden code and combining with spatial modulation” (mental process/mathematical concept);
“operating a calculation with highly sparse received signal” (mathematical concept, “calculation”).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because abstract ideas above amount to mental processes that can be performed (with the aid of a pen and paper/basic calculator) and/or are mathematical concepts without a practical application. In this case, while the above abstract ideas of configuration, mapping, applying, generalizing, combining, and calculating are performed, the methods/functions do not generate and transmit a specifically transformed/processed transmission signal that conveys data/information. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The transmit antennas are referred to, but do not perform any function. They are only used as configuration/mapping reference points, but do not actually transmit any signals. For the receiver of claim 7, the additional elements of a processor and memory are just generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract ideas, and are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-4, 6, 12-14 and 16 are dependent on claim 1 and 7 above, and are similarly rejected since they only further specify the received abstract ideas above, without integrating them into practical applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Hannah 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.
/David S Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights