DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on 8/9/2023is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions. The following is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-26 are pending and have been considered below. Priority This appln claims benefit of 63/505,835 06/02/2023 and claims benefit of 63/396,351 08/09/2022. The priority is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner. Claim Objections Claims 1, 19 are objected to for reciting “determining the majority vote …” There is no sufficient antecedent basis for “the majority vote.” Appropriate correction is requested. Claim 23 recites “… if Xsync is detected, to prevent reception …” It should read “… if Xsync is detected, prevent reception …” Appropriate correction is requested. 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 1-26 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 1-18 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 19-26 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) 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. 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 define define/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]). When considered individually , this limitation represents a mathematical concept. In addition, it 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 claim 3, which is representative of dependent claims 21, recites: [for] handling time synchronization among the EDs and ES, and [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. 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 gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea, as well as post-solution activity because they are mere transmitting 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 3 (which is representative of dependent claims 21) is deemed ineligible. Dependent claims 4, 5, which is representative of dependent claims 22, recites: wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform further operations, comprising using the TX DMA and RX DMA for transferring the IQ data between the random access memory (RAM) and a transceiver block; and the hard-coded processing block is further programmed for two respective modes of operation: (1) mode 1 where the TX DMA and RX DMA cannot transfer the IQ data, and (2) mode 2 where the TX DMA and RX DMA can transfer the IQ data. 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 gathering or pre-processing data/information (IQ data) in conjunction with the abstract idea, as well as post-solution activity because they are mere transmitting data (IQ 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)). 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 4, 5 (which is representative of dependent claim 22) is deemed ineligible. Dependent claims 6, 7 which is representative of dependent claim 23, recites: listen to the output of the transceiver processing block to search for the synchronization waveform Xsync, and if Xsync is detected, to sequentially sets a time to allow the RX DMA to move the received IQ data to the RAM, and to set another time to subsequently allow TX DMA to transfer the IQ data from the RAM to the transceiver processing block; and during mode 2, the hard-coded processing block is further programmed to listen to the output of the TX DMA to search for the synchronization waveform Xsync and if Xsync is detected, to 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 6, 7 (which is representative of dependent claim 23) is deemed ineligible. Dependent claim 8, which is representative of dependent claim 24, recites: controlling time synchronization among the ES and the EDs to perform sequential communication cycles using timers which are set up via the synchronization waveform Xsync in the receive and transmit directions at both EDs and ES without using the CCs. 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 implement 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 claim 8, which is representative of dependent claim 24, 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: each ED and the ES is based on respective SDRs each having an associated respective companion computer (CC) for handling baseband processing for its respective associated SDR; and 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 1-26 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, 9, 11-20, 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 the 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) 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. {see at least (53)-(54)/[11:4-10] software-defined radio, The claim element “SDR” 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. } 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: each ED and the ES is based on respective SDRs {The reference does not disclose the term “SDR”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability} each having an associated respective companion computer (CC) for handling baseband processing for its respective associated SDR; and {see at least (23)/[4:32-58] baseband processing hardware} 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 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 3-8, 21-24 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 Shor et al (US 2107/0294994). Regarding Claims 3, 21: Zhu, Kratz discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 20. Kratz further discloses: further comprising a hard-coded processing block programmed {The reference does not disclose the term “hard-coded processing block”. However, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and does not affect how the claimed invention functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not have any claim function in the claimed method; see MPEP 2106.01). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability} for handling time synchronization among the EDs and ES, and {see at least fig1A, fig1B, (16)-(20)/[2:24-4:28] synchronization among ED and ES} 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 Zhu, 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. Zhu, Kratz is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of synchronizing the communication between 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. Zhu, Kratz does not disclose, however, Shor discloses: 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. {see at least [0050] transferring data between DMA controller and system memory; fig4a, [0052] receive and transmit IQ data samples; Tx buffer; Rx buffer} 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 Shor. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to faster store/retrieve data to-from memory. In the instant case, Zhu, Kratz evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Shor is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a DMA controller in the same or similar context. Since both synchronization in over-the-air computation, as well as DMA controller 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 Shor 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 / Shor. Regarding Claims 4-5, 22: Zhu, Kratz, Shor discloses the limitations of Claims 3, 21. Shor further discloses: further comprising: a random access memory (RAM) and a transceiver processing block; and {see at least [0157]-[0158] RAM memory; [0052] transmit/receive IQ data (reads on transceiver block)} wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform further operations, comprising using the TX DMA and RX DMA for transferring the IQ data between the random access memory (RAM) and a transceiver block; and {see at least [0050] transferring data between DMA controller and system memory; fig4a, [0052] receive and transmit IQ data samples; Tx buffer; Rx buffer} the hard-coded processing block is further programmed for two respective modes of operation: (1) mode 1 where the TX DMA and RX DMA cannot transfer the IQ data, and {Examiner note: this limitation is the complement of “can transfer”. Based on the BRI (MPEP 2111) when “can transfer” is not satisfied, “cannot transfer” will be automatically stisfied} (2) mode 2 where the TX DMA and RX DMA can transfer the IQ data. {see at least [0052] IQ sample data are transferred (reads on “can transmit”)} 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 Shor. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to faster store/retrieve data to-from memory. In the instant case, Zhu, Kratz, Shor evidently discloses synchronization in over-the-air computation. Shor is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a DMA controller 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 6-7, 23: Zhu, Kratz, Shor discloses the limitations of Claims 5, 21. Shor further discloses: wherein: during mode 1, the hard-coded processing block is further programmed to listen to the output of the transceiver processing block to search for the synchronization waveform Xsync, and if Xsync is detected, to {see at least {see at least [0050] transferring data between DMA controller and system memory; fig4a, [0052] receive and transmit IQ data samples; Tx buffer; Rx buffer. The claim element “to search for the synchronization waveform Xsync, and if Xsync is detected” 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.} sequentially sets a time to allow the RX DMA to move the received IQ data to the RAM, and to {see at least fig3, [0040] frame 10ms, divided in ten sub-periods. The claim element “to allow the RX DMA to move the received IQ data to the RAM” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earli