DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 8/9/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 5/13/2026.
a. Claims 1-2, 7, 19-20, 23 are amended
b. Claims 3-6, 8, 21-22, 24 are cancelled
Overall, claims 1-2, 7, 9-20, 23, 25-26 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-2, 7, 9-20, 23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-2, 7, 9-18 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 19-20, 23, 25-26 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 19) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 19) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] An over-the-air computation (OAC) system for federated edge learning (FEEL) without using channel state information (CSI) at a plurality of edge devices (EDs) or at an edge server (ES), comprising: a machine-learning model training to process data received at an edge server (ES) as transmitted from a plurality of edge devices (EDs); one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
[B] transmitting local update vectors as votes from each respective of the plurality of edge devices (EDs) via a wireless multiple access channel,
[C] receiving the superposed local updates at the ES,
[D] determining the majority vote (MV) for each element of the update vector at the ES with an energy detector, and
[E] inputting the MVs into the machine-learning model to be updated,
[F] wherein the plurality of EDs and the ES each respectively comprise a software-defined radio (SDR) having an associated respective companion computer (CC) for handling baseband processing, the SDR including a hard-coded processing block that handles time synchronization among the EDs and the ES without relying on the CCs to perform sequential communication cycles by using timers set up via a synchronization waveform in both receive and transmit directions, and
[G] the hard-coded processing block jointly controls a transmitter (TX) direct-memory access (DMA) and a receiver (RX) DMA of the SDR to transfer in-phase/quadrature (IQ) data as a function of the detection of the synchronization waveform to overcome communication jitter between the CC and the SDR, by disabling the TX DMA and the RX DMA from transferring the IQ data until the synchronization waveform is detected at an output of a transceiver processing block, whereupon the hard-coded processing block sequentially
[H] sets a time to allow the RX DMA to move received IQ data to a random access memory (RAM) and sets another time to subsequently allow the TX DMA to transfer the IQ data from the RAM to the transceiver processing block.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 19) recites: each edge device transmits updated communication parameters, which are received by the server ([B], [C]) and determining the status of each device by utilizing a determined procedure (e.g. majority vote) ([D]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “transmitting local update vectors as votes from each respective of the plurality of edge devices (EDs) via a wireless multiple access channel”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally transmitting relevant data to a collecting point (e.g. an edge server), without physical aid. Further, the step “receiving the superposed local updates at the ES”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally receiving at the collecting point (e.g. an edge server) the transmitted data without physical aid. Further, the step “determining the majority vote (MV) for each element of the update vector at the ES with an energy detector”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally using a predetermined mechanism (e.g. majority vote, or any other mechanism for that matter) to determine/update the status of the respective entity (e.g. any edge device), without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). An individual may observe a vector and a series of elements, for example, and determine the majority vote. The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 19) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “over-the-air communication system,” “edge device,” “edge server,” “machine learning model training,” “processors,” “non-volatile computer readable media” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein the plurality of EDs and the ES each respectively comprise a software-defined radio (SDR) using a general purpose synchronization method between the ES and each respective ED which relies on the detection of a synchronization waveform in both receive and transmit directions” as applied to edge devices and edge servers, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: utilizing a machine learning model update the majority vote ([E]); the processing block controls a transmitter [G]; setting a time to enable the RX DMA [H]. When considered individually, this limitation amounts to nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 19), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 19) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 19 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claims 7 which is representative of dependent claim 23, recites:
the hard-coded processing block is further programmed for a mode of operation to
listen to an output of the TX DMA to search for the synchronization waveform Xsync, and if Xsync is detected, prevent reception by the RX DMA
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receive (“listen to the output of the …”) and pre-processing data that helps merely to implement the abstract idea using computing basic for performing more complex computing functions, along with using a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claims 7 (which is representative of dependent claim 23) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 11, 12, which is representative of dependent claim 25, recites:
coordinating the clocks of each ED and the ES, and
detection of a synchronization waveform is determined based on detecting the presence of the synchronization waveform back to back for a predetermined minimum number of times to declare a detection.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to pre-processing data that serves merely to prepare the implementation of the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claims 11, 12 (which is representative of dependent claim 25) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites:
(1) the edge server (ES) transmits a trigger signal along with the synchronization waveform,
(2) after the kth ED receives the trigger signal, each ED responds to the trigger signal with a calibration signal such that the received calibration signals are to be aligned back to back,
(3) the ES transmits a feedback signal with time offset information for all EDs, and
(4) each ED updates its local clock information based on the feedback signal.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere transmitting signal data in conjunction with the abstract idea, as well as post-solution activity because they are mere receiving signal data. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, dependent claim 13 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 15, 16 which is representative of dependent claim 26, recites:
maintaining communications over a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) having a plurality of different fields, comprising at least four different fields including frame synchronization, channel estimation (CHEST), header, and data fields, and
where each field is based on orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claims 15, 16 (which is representative of dependent claim 26) are deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites:
wherein determining the majority vote (MV) for each element of the update vector at the ES comprises
determining with an energy detector over orthogonal time and frequency resources; and
transmitting local update vectors comprises transmitting local update vectors as weighted votes over selected multiple orthogonal subcarriers grouped based on the sign of the elements of the update vector from each respective of the plurality of edge devices (EDs) via a wireless multiple access channel.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism. This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “determining with an energy detector over orthogonal time and frequency resources”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally checking the communication resources. Further, the step “transmitting local update vectors as weighted votes over selected multiple orthogonal subcarriers”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally transmitting data (e.g. vectors). These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Therefore, dependent claim 17 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 (which is representative of claim 20), 9-10, 14, 18 recite:
the synchronization waveform is the same in both receive and transmit directions, so that the SDRs to transmit or receive any in-phase/quadrature (IQ) data with precise timings.
wherein the synchronization waveform (Xsync) is synthesized based on a single-carrier (SC) waveform by upsampling a repeated binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulated sequence, and passing it through filter.
wherein the filter comprises a root-raised cosine (RRC) filter, and the null-to-null bandwidth of Xsync is equal to 0.75 fsample, where fsample is the sample rate.
wherein the feedback signal further includes information related to at least one of received signal power, transmit power increment, or carrier frequency offset (CFO).
wherein the votes comprise (1) pulse-position modulation (PPM) symbols constructed with discrete Fourier transform (DFT)-spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) (DFT-s-OFDM) or (2) frequency-shift keying (FSK) symbols constructed with orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) for voting options.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the ED and the ES; the synchronization waveform; the filter; the feedback; the votes – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (improving wireless communication between entities by utilizing a majority voting mechanism), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 9-10, 14, 18 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-2, 7, 9-20, 23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 11-20, 23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (“One-Bit Over-the-Air Aggregation for Communication-Efficient Federated Edge Learning: Design and Convergence Analysis”), in view of Kratz et al (US 11,658,798).
Regarding Claims 1, 19: Zhu discloses: An over-the-air computation (OAC) system for federated edge learning (FEEL) without using channel state information (CSI) at a plurality of edge devices (EDs) or at an edge server (ES), comprising: a machine-learning model training to process data received at an edge server (ES) as transmitted from a plurality of edge devices (EDs); {see at least Page 2122, Column 1, C. Contributions and Organization, Paragraph 1, "In this paper, we consider the implementation of over-the-air aggregation for FEEL over a practical wireless system with digital modulation... we design an elaborate FEEL scheme, called OBDA, which features on-bit gradient quantization and QAM modulation at devices, and over-the-air majority vote based gradient decoding at the edge server"}
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: {see at least Page 2122, Column 1, C. Contributions and Organization, Paragraph 1, “… we design an elaborate FEEL scheme … at the edge server”, since the system operates off of a server, they inherently maintain a processor and a storage medium as part of the system}
transmitting local update vectors as votes from each respective of the plurality of edge devices (EDs) via a wireless multiple access channel, {see at least Page 2123, Column 2, B. Communication Model, Paragraph 1, "Local gradient estimates of edge devices are transmitted to the edge server over a broadband MAC ... OFDM modulation is adopted to divide the available bandwidth B into M orthogonal sub-channels" thus the updates of EDs are sent through orthogonal subcarriers via wireless & Page 2124, Column 2, A. Transmitter Design, Paragraph 1, "Inspired by signSGD [15], we apply one-bit quantization of local gradient estimates, which simply corresponds to taking the signs of the local gradient parameters element-wise" & Page 2123, Footnote 2, “… the global gradient estimate is a weighted average of the local ones… the desired weighted aggregation of the local gradient estimate can also be attained by the proposed over-the-air aggregation with an additional pre-processing”, as the local gradients are essentially the votes, and these local gradients are weighted, they use weighted votes & Page 2122, Column 1, C. Contributions and Organization, Paragraph 1, "In this paper, we consider the implementation of over-the-air aggregation for FEEL over a practical wireless system with digital modulation... and over-the-air majority vote based gradient decoding at the edge server" thus the weighted aggregation is in the same context as the claimed invention}
receiving the superposed local updates at the ES, {see at least Page 2125, Columns 1-2, B. Receiver Design, "Given the simultaneous transmission of all participating devices, the server receives superimposed waveforms”}
determining a majority vote (MV) for each element of the update vector at the ES with an energy detector, and {see at least Page 2124, Fig. 2b & Page 2125, Column 1, B. Receiver Design, Paragraph 1, "Fig. 2(b) shows the receiver design for the edge server. It has the same architecture as a conventional OFDM receiver except that the digital detector is replaced with a majority-vote based decoder for estimating the global gradient-update from the received signal" thus as OFDM refers to orthogonal resources, the MV is determined over these resources}
inputting the MVs into the machine-learning model to be updated, {see at least Page 2125, Column 2, Paragraph after Equation 16, "Finally to attain a global gradient estimate from g for model updating, a majority-vote based decoder is adopted…" thus taking the majority votes into account to update the model}
Zhu does not disclose, however, Kratz discloses:
wherein the plurality of EDs and the ES each respectively comprise a software-defined radio (SDR) having an associated respective companion computer (CC) for handling baseband processing, the SDR including a hard-coded processing block that handles time synchronization among the EDs and the ES without relying on the CCs to perform sequential communication cycles by using timers set up via a synchronization waveform in both receive and transmit directions, and {see at least (53)-(54)/[11:4-10] software-defined radio; (23)-(32)/[5:11-7:25] each node can include baseband processing hardware; synchronization}
the hard-coded processing block jointly controls a transmitter (TX) direct-memory access (DMA) and a receiver (RX) DMA of the SDR to transfer in-phase/quadrature (IQ) data as a function of the detection of the synchronization waveform to overcome communication jitter between the CC and the SDR, by disabling the TX DMA and the RX DMA from transferring the IQ data until the synchronization waveform is detected at an output of a transceiver processing block, whereupon the hard-coded processing block sequentially sets a time to allow the RX DMA to move received IQ data to a random access memory (RAM) and sets another time to subsequently allow the TX DMA to transfer the IQ data from the RAM to the transceiver processing block {see at least (42)/[9:9-18] transmit/receive IQ; (28)/[6:37-53] reducing error sources, like communication jitter; fig1, rcS100, (22)-(23)/[4:58-5:30] transceiver block; (91)/[17:57-63] synchronization waveform}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Zhu to include the elements of Kratz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve communication between the ED and ESs. In the instant case, Zhu evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Kratz is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of software-defined radio in the same or similar context. Since both synchronization in over-the-air computation, as well as software-defined radio are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Zhu, as well as Kratz would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Zhu / Kratz.
Regarding Claims 2, 20: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 19. Kratz further discloses: wherein:
the synchronization waveform is the same in both receive and transmit directions, so that the SDRs to transmit or receive any in-phase/quadrature (IQ) data with precise timings. {see at least (42)/[9:9-18] transmit/receive IQ}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Zhu, Kratz to include additional elements of Kratz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve communication between ED and ESs. In the instant case, Zhu, Kratz evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Kratz is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of synchronizing ED and ESs in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 7, 23: Zhu, Kratz, Shor discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 19. Kratz further discloses: wherein:
the hard-coded processing block is further programmed for a mode of operation to listen to an output of the TX DMA to search for the synchronization waveform Xsync, and if Xsync is detected, prevent reception by the RX DMA {see at least (91)/[17:56-64] matched filter of the synchronization waveform.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Zhu, Kratz, Shor to include additional elements of Kratz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to maintain communication synchronization between transmitter and receiver. In the instant case, Zhu, Kratz, Shor evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Kratz is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a synchronization waveform in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 9: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 2. Zhu further discloses:
wherein the synchronization waveform (Xsync) is synthesized based on a single-carrier (SC) waveform by upsampling a repeated binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulated sequence, and passing it through filter. {see at least Page 2124, Column 1, B. Communication Model; Fig 2 Transceiver Design for OBDA, super-imposed waveform}
Regarding Claims 11-12, 25: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 19. Kratz further discloses: wherein the synchronization method between the ES and each respective ED further comprises: a closed-loop calibration procedure for
coordinating the clocks of each ED and the ES, and {see at least (38)/[8:34-40) coordinating clocks}
detection of a synchronization waveform is determined based on detecting the presence of the synchronization waveform back to back for a predetermined minimum number of times to declare a detection. {see at least (91)/[17:57-63] synchronizing waveform}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Zhu, Kratz to include additional elements of Kratz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve communication between ED and ESs. In the instant case, Zhu, Kratz evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Kratz is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of synchronizing ED and ESs in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 13: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 12. Kratz further discloses:
wherein the closed-loop calibration procedure comprises:
(1) the edge server (ES) transmits a trigger signal along with the synchronization waveform, {see at least (142)-(144)/[26:32-63] trigger signal in synchronization slot}
(2) after the kth ED receives the trigger signal, each ED responds to the trigger signal with a calibration signal such that the received calibration signals are to be aligned back to back, {see at least (148)-(150)/28:11-57] frequency calibration at node}
(3) the ES transmits a feedback signal with time offset information for all EDs, and {see at least (25)-(26)/[5:50-6:18] signal with time offset information}
(4) each ED updates its local clock information based on the feedback signal. {see at least (134)/[25:12-19] updating clock value}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Zhu, Kratz to include additional elements of Kratz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve communication between ED and ESs. In the instant case, Zhu, Kratz evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Kratz is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of synchronizing ED and ESs in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 14: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 13. Zhu further discloses:
wherein the feedback signal further includes information related to at least one of received signal power, transmit power increment, or carrier frequency offset (CFO). {see at least Page 2122, Column 1, B. Over-the-Air Aggregation channel-state information (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on signal power}
Regarding Claims 15-16, 26: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 19. Kratz further discloses: wherein the SDRs are programmed for
maintaining communications over a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) having a plurality of different fields, comprising at least four different fields including frame synchronization, channel estimation (CHEST), header, and data fields, and {see at least (29)/[6:53-59] frame duration, synchronization; fig6B, (146)/[27:29-47] calculating time-difference-of-arrival (reads on channel estimating); (60)/[12:5-19] header; (60)/[12:5-19] data transfer slots (reads on data field)}
where each field is based on orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols. {see at least (90)/[17:44-56] OFDM signal}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Zhu, Kratz to include additional elements of Kratz. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve communication between ED and ESs. In the instant case, Zhu, Kratz evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Kratz is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of Kratz is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of synchronizing ED and ESs in the same or similar context. in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 17: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 1. Zhu further discloses: wherein: determining the majority vote (MV) for each element of the update vector at the ES comprises
determining with an energy detector over orthogonal time and frequency resources; and {see at least Page 2124, Fig. 2b & Page 2125, Column 1, B. Receiver Design, Paragraph 1, "Fig. 2(b) shows the receiver design for the edge server. It has the same architecture as a conventional OFDM receiver except that the digital detector is replaced with a majority-vote based decoder for estimating the global gradient-update from the received signal" thus as OFDM refers to orthogonal resources, the MV is determined over these resources}
transmitting local update vectors comprises transmitting local update vectors as weighted votes over selected multiple orthogonal subcarriers grouped based on the sign of the elements of the update vector from each respective of the plurality of edge devices (EDs) via a wireless multiple access channel. {see at least Page 2123, Column 2, B. Communication Model, Paragraph 1, "Local gradient estimates of edge devices are transmitted to the edge server over a broadband MAC ... OFDM modulation is adopted to divide the available bandwidth B into M orthogonal sub-channels" thus the updates of EDs are sent through orthogonal subcarriers via wireless & Page 2124, Column 2, A. Transmitter Design, Paragraph 1, "Inspired by signSGD [15], we apply one-bit quantization of local gradient estimates, which simply corresponds to taking the signs of the local gradient parameters element-wise" & Page 2123, Footnote 2, “… the global gradient estimate is a weighted average of the local ones… the desired weighted aggregation of the local gradient estimate can also be attained by the proposed over-the-air aggregation with an additional pre-processing”, as the local gradients are essentially the votes, and these local gradients are weighted, they use weighted votes & Page 2122, Column 1, C. Contributions and Organization, Paragraph 1, "In this paper, we consider the implementation of over-the-air aggregation for FEEL over a practical wireless system with digital modulation... and over-the-air majority vote based gradient decoding at the edge server" thus the weighted aggregation is in the same context as the claimed invention}
Regarding Claims 18: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 1. Zhu further discloses: wherein the votes comprise
(1) pulse-position modulation (PPM) symbols constructed with discrete Fourier transform (DFT)-spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) (DFT-s-OFDM) or {see at least Page 2121, fig1, Fig 1, FEEL via OBDA – linear modulation, digital modulation for implementation of FEEL; Page 2124, fig2, FFT and iFFT}
(2) frequency-shift keying (FSK) symbols constructed with orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) for voting options. {see at least Page 2122, Column 1, C. Contributions and Organization, Paragraph 1, based on orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), designing a FEEL scheme called OBDA for over-the-air majority vote. The claim element “for voting options” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (“One-Bit Over-the-Air Aggregation for Communication-Efficient Federated Edge Learning: Design and Convergence Analysis”), in view of Kratz et al (US 11,658,798), in further view of Khoini-Poorfard et al (US 6,603,804).
Regarding Claims 10: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 9. Zhu, Kratz does not disclose, however, Khoini-Poorfard discloses:
wherein the filter comprises a root-raised cosine (RRC) filter, and the null-to-null bandwidth of Xsync is equal to 0.75 fsample, where fsample is the sample rate. {see at least (6)/[1:29-53], [claim28] null-to-null bandwidth, root-raised cosine filter}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Zhu, Kratz to include the elements of Khoini-Poorfard. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to improve communication between the ED and ESs. In the instant case, Zhu, Kratz evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Khoini-Poorfard is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a filtering method in the same or similar context. Since both synchronization in over-the-air computation, as well as filtering method are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Zhu, Kratz, as well as Khoini-Poorfard would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Zhu, Kratz / Khoini-Poorfard.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180219575 A1 HAFUKA; Takamitsu SIGNAL DETECTION CIRCUIT AND SIGNAL DETECTION METHOD A signal detection circuit includes: a correlation circuit including the first through nth correlators connected sequentially as the first through nth stage correlators and each computing a correlation value between a received signal and a spreading sequence while shifting the received signal to the next stage depending on the chip rate period of the spreading sequence; a first adder that adds k correlation values computed by k correlators so as to generate a first addition value; a second adder that adds r correlation values computed by r correlators so as to generate a second addition value; a subtractor that subtracts the first addition value from the second addition value so as to generate a subtraction value; and a synchronization detection unit that compares the subtraction value with a threshold value, so as to detect the synchronization timing of the spreading sequence and the received signal.
US 20120114026 A1 Nguyen; Tien M. et al. Datalink System Architecture Using OTS/COTS Modem for MIMO Multipath Sensing Networks An apparatus interfaces a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)/off-the-shelf (OTS) modem for pulsed data communication using existing sensor aperture among radar platforms. The apparatus includes a demodulator for receiving a sequence of first pulse signals, at least one first pulse signal of the sequence of first pulse signals being modulated with an input signal. The demodulator includes a pulse regeneration module for regenerating a pulse timing of the sequence of first pulse signals and a pulse demodulation module for demodulating the sequence of first pulse signals to recover the input signal in synchronization with the pulse timing of the sequence of first pulse signals.
US 20070060079 A1 Nakagawa; Tatsuo et al. Receiver, frequency deviation measuring unit and positioning and ranging system In a system for measuring a time difference of arrival of signals for positioning, an accurate time difference is measured by a receiver which is reduced in power consumption, size, and cost. The system comprises a node (under measurement) for transmitting a positioning signal, a reference station for transmitting a reference signal, and a plurality of access points for receiving the positioning signal and reference signal, and a server connected to the plurality of access points through a network. Each of the plurality of access points measures a time difference between the reception of the positioning signal and the reception of the reference signal, and a frequency deviation from the reference station, using a clock signal and a signal for shifting the clock signal, and the server calculates the position of the node based on the measured time difference and frequency deviation.
US 20060064725 A1 Rabinowitz; Matthew et al. Pilot acquisition and local clock calibration with reduced MIPS The present invention provides a method, system, and apparatus for estimating a pilot frequency of a television broadcast signal at a receiver. In one aspect, the receiver constitutes a mobile device that uses the estimated pilot frequency to facilitate the determination of position location of the mobile device. The receiver includes a processor which estimates the pilot frequency by computing a baseband version of the pilot signal relative to a reference frequency, defining time-shifted segments for the pilot signal and its baseband version, computing phase correction terms using the pilot signal and its baseband version, phase correcting each received signal segment, and estimating the pilot frequency. In another aspect of the invention, a phase-locked-loop is used to track the phase of the incoming pilot signal. The loop filter and/or the phase of the numerically controlled oscillator is scaled to account for the non-integer nature of samples within the received segments.
US 6418158 B1 Vishwanath; T. G. et al. Synchronization in mobile satellite systems using dual-chirp waveform A waveform to be transmitted as a burst within a channel that is used for the synchronization of unsynchronized wireless communications terminals in a wireless communications system, and a method of synchronization involving the waveform, that consists of a composite waveform. The composite waveform comprises two or more component waveforms, wherein each of the two or more component waveforms has a known frequency variation throughout the burst. The composite waveform has a composite bandwidth on an order of an available channel bandwidth and each of said two or more component waveforms have a component bandwidth on the order of the available channel bandwidth. Furthermore, a range of values for the differences between the instantaneous frequencies of two of said two or more component waveforms is on an order of twice of said available channel bandwidth.
US 4521803 A Gittinger; Norman C. System for compatible transmission of high-resolution TV A high-resolution television system is described which provides twice the vertical resolution of present television standards and is compatible therewith. A high-resolution television camera substantially simultaneously provides information from each of a pair of adjacent scan lines; the luminance information of both lines is added to provide information for amplitude modulation onto a luminance carrier, while the difference in luminance of the two adjacent scan lines is utilized to modulate a carrier phased in quadrature with the luminance carrier. The chrominance values of both lines are added to modulate a chrominance carrier. The bandwidth of the resulting luminance and chrominance signals are compatible with that of a carrier modulated by a single raster line. At a television receiver, a synchronous quadrature detector provides the sum and difference luminance signals, which are then respectively added to and subtracted from one another to obtain the adjacent line luminance signals for display upon a picture tube in a high-definition television set. A standard television set utilizes only the additive luminance signal to display a compatible picture. Increased horizontal definition, by increasing transmitted signal bandwidth or by utilization of horizontal interlace, and/or increased chroma definition, may be utilized alone or in conjunction with increased vertical resolution to provide a total high-resolution television picture.
US 6169514 B1 Sullivan; Mark Low-power satellite-based geopositioning system A Low Earth Orbiting satellite system provides location and data communications services to mobile users equipped with a receiver/transmitter. The receiver/transmitter acts as a transponder that responds to a query transmitted over the satellite network. The response is sent after a precisely controlled time interval after the transponder receives the query so that the ground station can estimate the length of the propagation path from the satellite to the transponder. The transponder also transmits the response at a frequency that is proportional to the frequency of the received query so that the ground station can estimate the first and second derivatives of the length of the propagation path according to the measured Doppler shift. The ground station also estimates the satellite positioning using telemetry from the satellite obtained from the on-board GPS receiver. The position of the user terminal relative to the satellite position is then determined from the path length measurements. Given the satellite position and velocity, the measured path length and first and second derivatives determine the angle between the direction of satellite motion and the line of bearing to the user terminal. This angle defines a cone with the satellite at the origin. The user terminal position is somewhere on the circle defined by the cone and the estimated path length. The intersection of this circle with the surface of the Earth yields two possible user positions, which ambiguity can be resolved by three techniques: (1) use of knowledge of which beam the signal was received in; (2) use of earlier position data; or (3) using nearby satellites to receive the signal. The user terminal uses a single frequency reference to provide timing for the receive and transmit frequency synthesizers and for the analog-to digital and digital-to-analog converters. The frequency tracking algorithm shifts the baseband frequency of the response by a factor k so that the output frequency is related to the frequency of the received signal by the same factor k. This eliminates the absolute frequency of the reference as a source of error and allows the use of less expensive oscillators in the user terminal. In addition to the above, the present invention is able to rapidly acquire the signal at very low signal levels in the presence of large frequency uncertainties.
US 7245930 B1 Vishwanath; T G et al. Acquisition mechanism for a mobile satellite system A method for enabling synchronization of a communications terminal in a wireless communication system, and a corresponding acquisition system of the communications terminal, wherein the method consists of the steps of: receiving a burst at a receiver of the communications terminal, the burst containing a composite waveform including two or more component waveforms, wherein each of the two or more waveforms has a known frequency variation throughout the burst; detecting the presence of the composite waveform; and estimating a frequency offset and a timing offset of the composite waveform as received into the receiver, whereby synchronization is achieved.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims Objections.
The objections are withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 fully satisfies 35 U.S.C. §101 and is patent-eligible under the USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) because the claim, as a whole, integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by providing a specific, hardware-based improvement to the functioning of software-defined radio (SOR) and over-the-air computation (OAC) technology, which goes far beyond a mere abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that applicant makes reference to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a)
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicant respectfully submits that such specific subject matter (including both specific transmitting and receiving features) clearly amounts to more than merely an abstract idea, wherefore Step 2A Prong 1, Judicial Exception is respectfully satisfied.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
“Specific subject matter” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “When it comes to alternative consideration of Step 2A Prong 2 - Integration into a Practical Application, it is clear that amended claim 1 in any event recasts any perceived abstract idea into a specific, tangible, and inventive solution by utilizing a specialized machine-learning model and arrangement of transmitting/receiving processing to achieve over-the-air computation. Respectfully, a claim satisfies the Step 2A Prong 2 requirements when it provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.04(d)).”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It appears that applicant makes reference to the provisions of MPEP 2106.05(a)
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “For example, amended claim 1 provides a highly specific, technological solution to a documented technological problem in the field of OAC systems. As described in the Specification, a critical requirement for OAC schemes is that edge devices must start their transmissions synchronously with high accuracy. However, when using a Software-Defined Radio (SDR) connected to a Companion Computer (CC) for baseband processing, the transmission and reception instants are subject to severe latency and communication jitter caused by the underlying CC protocols (e.g., USB,TCP/IP). This protocol jitter natively destroys the precise microsecond timing required for OAC.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “This is not a generic instruction to "apply majority voting on a computer." This is a physical reorganization of where and how memory is accessed inside an SOR to bypass the latency of a companion computer. Because the claim provides a specific hardware configuration to solve a technical defect inherent in SOR networks, it improves the technology and is integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
“A specific hardware configuration” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The eligibility of amended claim 1 is directly supported by the USPTO's own Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Such technology particulars compare favorably with Example 45 (Controller for Injection Mold) and Example 34 (System for Filtering Internet Content) of the 2019 PEG with supplements, where technological examples were held eligible.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not proper practice to go and find a particular Example from the Office published material and use the specific arguments from that Example to determine eligibility of a particular claimed invention, unless the particular claimed invention uniquely matches (i.e. a case that involves identical or similar facts or similar legal issues) the subject matter claimed in that particular Example, which in the instant situation it does not. The Office periodically publishes Examples with detailed analyses only to serve as rational and argumentation models to determine eligibility. Each application has to be considered on its own merits. Examples provided by the Office are nothing more than the name suggests: EXAMPLES, that are to be considered or not, as they are neither laws, nor rules, nor regulations.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In this instance, Applicant submits that the claimed subject matter of amended claim 1 respectfully provides "significantly more" than any asserted abstract idea and satisfies 35 U.S.C. §101.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action has determined at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 19) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 19 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits “Further, the subject Office Action (page 22) already notes that Zhu and Kratz do not disclose: for controlling the transmitter (TX) direct-memory access (DMA) and the receiver (RX) DMA of the SDRs as a function of the detection of the synchronization waveform (Xsync) in the transmit or receive directions.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Kratz discloses:
the hard-coded processing block jointly controls a transmitter (TX) direct-memory access (DMA) and a receiver (RX) DMA of the SDR to transfer in-phase/quadrature (IQ) data as a function of the detection of the synchronization waveform to overcome communication jitter between the CC and the SDR, by disabling the TX DMA and the RX DMA from transferring the IQ data until the synchronization waveform is detected at an output of a transceiver processing block, whereupon the hard-coded processing block sequentially sets a time to allow the RX DMA to move received IQ data to a random access memory (RAM) and sets another time to subsequently allow the TX DMA to transfer the IQ data from the RAM to the transceiver processing block {see at least (42)/[9:9-18] transmit/receive IQ; (28)/[6:37-53] reducing error sources, like communication jitter; fig1, rcS100, (22)-(23)/[4:58-5:30] transceiver block; (91)/[17:57-63] synchronization waveform}
Therefore, Kratz discloses the emended claim limitation. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The subject Office Action asserted reliance on Shor with respect to, inter alia, the claim subject matter of original claims 22 and 23. Thus, the PTO relies on Shor for various OMA limitations.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The rejection of independent claims 1, 19 in the instant office action does not rely on Shor.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The remaining applied secondary reference fails to cure such deficiencies of the base combination references. For example, Khoini-Poorfard is only cited …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The rejection of independent claims 1, 19 in the instant office action does not rely on Khoini-Poorfard.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights