Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/338,425

Multi-Layer PAPR Reduction

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Examiner
CHRISS, ANDREW W
Art Unit
2472
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Mavenir Systems Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
150 granted / 208 resolved
+14.1% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
267
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 208 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s response, filed 25 November 2025, has been entered and carefully considered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-20 are canceled. Claim 1 is currently pending. The outstanding objection to Claim 1 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claim. The outstanding rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claim. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that “the claimed technique is i) explicitly integrated into a practical application (controlling the PAPR of DMRS in the context of 5G NR transmission), and ii) explicitly limited to implementing the PAPR reduction using the M-OCC method by the DU of RAN in the context of 5G NR transmission.” The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first notes that there are no steps of “controlling the PAPR of DMRS” or “implementing the PAPR reduction” positively recited in the claim. Claim 1, as amended, recites “performing, by a distributed unit (DU) of the RAN, a modified orthogonal cover code (M-OCC) method reducing peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) of a multi-layer precoder matrix (PM)-combined demodulation reference signal (DMRS) symbol in a slot to a PAPR of a corresponding Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) symbol in the slot.” As claimed, “reducing…PAPR” is interpreted as a desired result of the method, but does not require any steps to be performed (refer to MPEP 2111.04); therefore, the phrase is not accorded patentable weight and it would be improper to presume that there are unclaimed steps performed to this effect. As such, the limitation “reducing…PAPR…” does not factor into the analysis when considering whether the claimed abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s contention that the claimed elements “use the mathematical calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application or reducing …. PAPR” are not persuasive, because the claim does not contain any step of using the outputs of the multiplication to perform the PAPR reduction. Applicant notes that (emphasis added by the Office) “(t)o evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set for an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement.” As noted above, the PAPR reduction is solely recited in the claim language as an intended result of the M-OCC method (comprising the multiplication steps) and not steps that are performed as part of the method. Therefore, the claim does not reflect the disclosed improvement, because it does not contain any steps that do so. Regarding Applicant’s statement that the claim is “explicitly limited to implementing the PAPR reduction using the M-OCC method by the DU of RAN in the context of 5G NR transmission”, the Office notes that the DU of the RAN is recited in the claim at a high level of generality, amounting to a mere indication of a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (refer to MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, Applicant’s statement is not persuasive. Although Applicant further cites example 41 of the 2019 PEG examples as part of the remarks filed 25 November 2025, this amounts to a mere allegation of patentability, as Applicant has provided no specific analysis or evidence is provided to show how the claim in the instant application follows a similar fact pattern to example 41. For the reasons provided above, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites (emphasis added) “performing… a modified orthogonal cover code (M-OCC) method reducing peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) of a multi-layer precoder matrix (PM)-combined demodulation reference signal (DMRS) symbol in a slot to a PAPR of a corresponding Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) symbol in the slot, wherein the M-OCC method comprises; i. multiplying a PM with a specified multiplication factor in frequency domain to obtain a modified PM, and ii. subsequently multiplying at least one of multiple downlink (DL) layers with the modified PM; wherein: a) when the M-OCC method is performed on three DL layers comprising layer 0, layer 1 and layer 2, the layer 2 is multiplied by a specified first multiplication factor b while keeping layers 0 and 1 unmodified, wherein the value of the specified first multiplication factor b is one of -1 for a precoder resource group (PRG) length of 2 Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs), and 1 for a PRG length of 4 PRBs; and b) when the M-OCC method is performed for four DL layers comprising layer 0, layer 1, layer 2 and layer 3, the layer 3 is multiplied by a specified second multiplication factor a while keeping layers 0, 1 and 2 unmodified, wherein the value of the specified second multiplication factor a is -1 for all layer-3 resource elements (REs).” As shown by the emphasized portions above, the claim recites multiple steps where multiplication is performed, along with limitations that indicate certain values used in the multiplication. Therefore, the limitations shown above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, which falls under the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim recites “a radio access network (RAN)” and that the modified orthogonal cover code method is performed “at a distributed unit (DU) of the RAN.” However, these additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate performing the calculations. These additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the RAN and the distributed unit of the RAN). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a RAN and using a distributed unit in a RAN to perform the method amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component does not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, and thereby cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Frenne et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20210328846) discloses enhancing the DMRS in order to reduce the PAPR to the same level as data symbols (paragraph 0062). Eger et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20210306194) discloses clipping a signal to reduce a PAPR of the signal (paragraph 0070). Intel Corporation (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #94bis R1-1810793) is directed to addressing high PAPR issues for DMRS. Ali Khan et al (“Low PAPR DMRS sequence Design for 5G-NR Uplink”) addresses the design of reference signals with low PAPR compared to data signals. Ali Khan et al (“Low PAPR Reference Signal Transceiver Design for 3GPP 5G NR Uplink”) addresses minimizing PAPR of reference signals. 3GPP TS 38.212 V15.11.0 (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Multiplexing and channel coding (Release 15)) discloses PUCCH DMRS and UCI symbol configuration (see clause 6.3.1.6). THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET. 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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. /ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593235
ANALYTICS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574793
First Network Node, Second Network Node and Methods in a Wireless Communications Network
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562805
BEAM MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556340
SEPARATE HYBRID AUTOMATIC RECEIPT REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR DOWNLINK TRANSMISSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12507218
CONTROL PLANE MESSAGE FOR SLOT INFORMATION CONVEYANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.1%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 208 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month