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 July 21, 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 Yigit et al (“Low-complexity detection of quadrature spatial modulation”, Electronics Letters, Vol. 52 No. 20, pp. 1729–1731, 29th September 2016).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 10 – 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “the next iteration.” in line 9 should be corrected to “a next iteration.”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 5, “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 operations comprising:…” in lines 1 – 5 should be changed to “A communication system to perform operations comprising:…” Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 10 – 12, “The communication system of…” in line 1 should be corrected to “The receiver of…”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 12, “the next iteration.” in line 9 should be corrected to “a next iteration.”. 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 10 – 12 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 computer-implemented decoding method for configuring a plurality of transmit antennas…”.
The claim recites of a “compressed sensing algorithms”, “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, the additional elements do not integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application beyond using it as a tool for mapping and decoding 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 compressed sensing algorithms to decode spatial modulation signals merely applies the abstract mathematical algorithm 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 compressed sensing algorithms improve 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 decoder 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, mapping operations and decoding 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 algorithm for decoding 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 “compressed sensing algorithms”, “in-phase spatial constellation symbol”, “quadrature spatial constellation symbol” and “mapping source data” to those symbols. These limitations describe a mathematical algorithm 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 mathematical algorithms to perform decoding and 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 decoding 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 compressed sensing algorithms to decode spatial modulation signals 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 compressed sensing algorithms improves the functioning of the system. Instead, the claim uses 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 10 – 12 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 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 11 – 12 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 corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 11 recites the limitation "the corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 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 11 or to different selections? The recited greedy selection of claim 3 corresponds to a single iteration?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yigit et al (“Low-complexity detection of quadrature spatial modulation”, Electronics Letters, Vol. 52 No. 20, pp. 1729–1731, 29th September 2016).
Re claim 1, Yigit teaches of a computer-implemented decoding method for configuring a plurality of transmit antennas (Spatial modulation (SM) is a novel multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) transmission scheme, Introduction, Col 1, Page 1, Nt is the number of transmit antennas, Col 1, Page 1), the method comprising: configuring the plurality of transmit antennas to each represent an in-phase spatial constellation symbol within an in-phase spatial constellation, and a quadrature spatial constellation symbol within a quadrature spatial constellation (In QSM, a complex data symbol is decomposed into its real and imaginary parts, Col 1, Page 1), mapping source data to the in-phase spatial constellation symbols and the quadrature spatial constellation symbols represented by the plurality of transmit antennas (A complex data symbol is selected from an M-QAM constellation S according to the first log2(M) bits. This symbol is decomposed into its real and imaginary components as sR and sI, where s = sR + jsI. Then, sR and jsI are independently transmitted from the lRth and lIth transmit antennas using the SM principle, respectively, where lR, lI ∈ {1, 2, …, Nt} are determined according to the remaining 2log2Nt bits, Col 1, Page 1), wherein a notion of applying sparse detection, compressed sensing algorithms to decode spatial modulation signals is proceeded (“Proposed detection algorithm”, Col 2, Page 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arickan et al (US 2019/0239140).
Re claim 5, Arickan teaches of a receiver of a communication system having a processor (#200, Fig.2), volatile (#202 and volatile memory, Paragraph 0048) and/or non-volatile memory, at least one interface adapted to receive a signal in an communication channel (#210, Fig.2), wherein the non-volatile memory stores computer program instructions which, when executed by the microprocessor, configure the receiver to perform operations comprising: configuring the plurality of transmit antennas to each represent an in-phase spatial constellation symbol within an in-phase spatial constellation, and a quadrature spatial constellation symbol within a quadrature spatial constellation, mapping source data to the in-phase spatial constellation symbols and the quadrature spatial constellation symbols represented by the plurality of transmit antennas, wherein the a notion of applying sparse detection, compressed sensing algorithms to decode spatial modulation signals is proceeded (Examiner has not given patentable weight on the alternative limitation of “non-volatile memory”. More specifically, the recited wherein clause and the recited operations are tied to the “non-volatile memory” and have not been given patentable weight. See MPEP 2173.05(h)). (For the purpose of art rejection, the Examiner has provided a rejection if patentable weight was given in Page 15).
For the same reason given to claim 5, Examiner has not given patentable weight for claims 10 – 15.
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.
Claims 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yigit in view of Kamilov et al (“Learning optimal nonlinearities for iterative thresholding algorithms”, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc., 2016)
Re claim 2, Yigit teaches 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, Yigit teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as well as Yigit teaches of using a greedy selection of the positions of the antennas index (incoming data bits determine the index of the activated transmit antenna, Col 1, Page 1) and the in-phase spatial constellation symbol estimates and quadrature spatial constellation symbol estimates (equation 4), and their independent decoding of the corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits is determined (Col 2, Page 1). However, Yigit 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 Yigit in view of Xu et al (US 9,490,938).
Re claim 4, Yigit teaches 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 Yigit in view of Arickan et al (US 2019/0239140).
Re claim 5, Yigit teaches of a communication system (Page 1) to perform operations comprising: configuring the plurality of transmit antennas to each represent an in-phase spatial constellation symbol within an in-phase spatial constellation, and a quadrature spatial constellation symbol within a quadrature spatial constellation (In QSM, a complex data symbol is decomposed into its real and imaginary parts, Col 1, Page 1), mapping source data to the in-phase spatial constellation symbols and the quadrature spatial constellation symbols represented by the plurality of transmit antennas (A complex data symbol is selected from an M-QAM constellation S according to the first log2(M) bits. This symbol is decomposed into its real and imaginary components as sR and sI, where s = sR + jsI. Then, sR and jsI are independently transmitted from the lRth and lIth transmit antennas using the SM principle, respectively, where lR, lI ∈ {1, 2, …, Nt} are determined according to the remaining 2log2Nt bits, Col 1, Page 1), wherein a notion of applying sparse detection, compressed sensing algorithms to decode spatial modulation signals is proceeded (“Proposed detection algorithm”, Col 2, Page 1). Yigit 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.
Arickan teaches 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 the communication system 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 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yigit and Arickan in view of Kamilov.
Re claim 10, Yigit 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 11, Yigit and Arickan teach all the limitations of claim 5 as well as Yigit teaches of using a greedy selection of the positions of the antennas index (incoming data bits determine the index of the activated transmit antenna, Col 1, Page 1) and the in-phase spatial constellation symbol estimates and quadrature spatial constellation symbol estimates (equation 4), and their independent decoding of the corresponding antenna modulated and symbol modulated bits is determined (Col 2, Page 1). However, Yigit 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yigit and Arickan in view of Xu et al (US 9,490,938).
Re claim 12, Yigit 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