Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Request for Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 2.
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 01/09/26 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 were previously amended on 11/25/25. Claims 2, 9 and 16 remained cancelled. No new claims are added. As a result, claims 1, 3-8,10-15 and 17-23 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(a). Applicant’s argument: Amended claim 1 recites specific limitations reciting formulating an optimization to jointly obtain optimal receiver scheduling, power allocation, and precoding. Thus, as described by the specification, AoII may be minimized for multiple access systems and results in a lower AoII than SDMA and other related techniques due to superior performance under multi- receiver interference. Thus, amended claim 1 recites one or more elements that, individually or in combination, recite a particular and useful application of deploying an accurate trust designation. Therefore, amended claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter. Amended claims 8 and 15 recite similar subject matter and are thus directed to statutory subject matter for at least similar features. Therefore, amended claims 1, 8, and 15, and the claims that depend thereon, are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(b). Examiner’s response: After careful review of the applicant’s presented remarks and position on the 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the provided amendments and remarks remove the grounds for rejection of the noted claims as abstract ideas.
The additional limitation added by amendment comprising ‘convergence, wherein the convex optimization problem is derived from a non-convex problem formulated to jointly obtain user scheduling, precoding, resource allocation, and power allocation schemes;’ only serve to represent additional ‘mathematical formular or calculation’ levels of scope within the claim, as supported in the cited portions of the MPEP and provided rationales in the grounds for rejection provided below.
The applicant has further formulated a response around the concept that the claimed limitations are directed towards “improvements ---using RSMA may result in a lower AoII than SDMA and other related techniques due to superior performance under multi- receiver interference, thereby improving an overall system performance.”.
However, there is nothing in the actual scope of the claimed limitations that specifically supports this position. As such the argument is not towards the merits of the established limitations of the claims. As stated in the grounds for rejection in the previous and current action, there is no practical implementation of "a precoder matrix, a vector of scheduling indicators, and a vector of auxiliary variable", these parameters (a precoder matrix, a vector of scheduling indicators, and a vector of auxiliary variable) are not used to physically change (update) something, show some improvement or
enhancement in the claims. As such, the grounds for rejection under USC 101 abstract idea, is respectfully maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regards to claim 1:
Step 1: The claim recites a series of steps (a process).
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites mathematical formular or calculation that is used to (determining, using, determining and transmitting total age of incorrect information (AoII) to update one or more receivers based on the precoder matrix and the vector of scheduling indicators. Thus claim recites mathematical formula or calculations (abstract ideas).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, the additional element, “by the transmitter and using a downlink multi-user communication framework based on rate-splitting multiple access (RSMA) in a semantic-aware network, one or more updates to one or more receivers based on the precoder matrix and the vector of scheduling indicators.,” the claim simply recites an application, the claim omits any details as to how the models solve a technical problem, and only recites the idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Specifically, the limitations “the iterative algorithm to solve a convex optimization problem based on a plurality of iterations that continue until an objective function associated with AoII converges to within the tolerance factor for algorithm convergence, wherein the convex optimization problem is derived from a non-convex problem formulated to jointly obtain user scheduling, precoding, resource allocation, and power allocation schemes; ” is using the computer merely as a toll to implement the judicial exception, while the applying the model represents instructions to apply on a computer using generic computer components without any specificity to solving of the technical problem. Therefore claim 1, is rejected as being drawn to an abstract idea. When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of mathematical formular or calculation.
Regarding claims 3-8 and 21, respectively, depend on claim 1, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 1. Thus claims 2-7 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1. Claims continue to omit technical details and recite an idea of a solution or outcome (MPEP 2106.05).
With regards to claim 8,
Step 1: The claim recites a series of steps (a process).
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites mathematical formular or calculation that is used to (determining, using, determining and transmitting total age of incorrect information (AoII) to update one or more receivers based on the precoder matrix and the vector of scheduling indicators. Thus claim recites mathematical formula or calculations (abstract ideas).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, the additional element, “by the transmitter and using a downlink multi-user communication framework based on rate-splitting multiple access (RSMA) in a semantic-aware network, one or more updates to one or more receivers based on the precoder matrix and the vector of scheduling indicators.,” the claim simply recites an application, the claim omits any details as to how the models solve a technical problem, and only recites the idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Specifically, the limitations “the iterative algorithm to solve a convex optimization problem based on a plurality of iterations that continue until an objective function associated with AoII converges to within the tolerance factor for algorithm convergence, wherein the convex optimization problem is derived from a non-convex problem formulated to jointly obtain user scheduling, precoding, resource allocation, and power allocation schemes;” is using the computer merely as a toll to implement the judicial exception, while the applying the model represents instructions to apply on a computer using generic computer components without any specificity to solving of the technical problem. Therefore claim 8, is rejected as being drawn to an abstract idea. When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of mathematical formular or calculation.
Regarding claims 10-14 and 22 respectively, depend on claim 8, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 8. Thus claims 9-14 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 8. Claims continue to omit technical details and recite an idea of a solution or outcome (MPEP 2106.05).
With regards to claim 15:
Step 1: The claim recites a series of steps (a process).
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites mathematical formular or calculation that is used to (determining, using, determining and transmitting total age of incorrect information (AoII) to update one or more receivers based on the precoder matrix and the vector of scheduling indicators. Thus claim recites mathematical formula or calculations (abstract ideas).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, the additional element, “by the transmitter and using a downlink multi-user communication framework based on rate-splitting multiple access (RSMA) in a semantic-aware network, one or more updates to one or more receivers based on the precoder matrix and the vector of scheduling indicators.,” the claim simply recites an application, the claim omits any details as to how the models solve a technical problem, and only recites the idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05).
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Specifically, the limitations “the iterative algorithm to solve a convex optimization problem based on a plurality of iterations that continue until an objective function associated with AoII converges to within the tolerance factor for algorithm convergence, wherein the convex optimization problem is derived from anon-convex problem formulated to jointly obtain user scheduling, precoding, resource allocation, and power allocation schemes;” is using the computer merely as a toll to implement the judicial exception, while the applying the model represents instructions to apply on a computer using generic computer components without any specificity to solving of the technical problem. Therefore claim 15, is rejected as being drawn to an abstract idea. When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of mathematical formular or calculation.
Regarding claims 17-20 and 23 respectively, depend on claim 15, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 15. Thus claims 16-20 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 15. Claims continue to omit technical details and recite an idea of a solution or outcome (MPEP 2106.05
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELENE E TAYONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1675. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HELENE E TAYONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 March 21, 2026