DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument: Applicant argued (pages 8-14) that the Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C 101 was not appropriate. Applicant argued that the Office Action presumes that Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea without providing support whether it is a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity or a mental process. Applicant also indicated that the claims have significant more without even reciting additional elements that integrated judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, Applicant believes the “configured for a phase ambiguity limitation” recited in the do not recite a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity or a mental process.
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 are directed to abstract idea, particularly drawn to mental process since the claims recite receiving input and generating output limitations without adding significantly more. In order, for the claims rejected under 35 U.C.S. 101 to recite significantly more than the judicial exception, they must be amended to have steps integrated to the concept of the claim to show practical application. Examiner also believes adding the feature “at least one processor” is not significantly more but general-purpose computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The phrase “configured for phase ambiguity limitation” is vague and does not add any significantly more (inventive concept) to the claims. Therefore, the Applicant arguments with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-15, 17, 18 and 20 rejected under statutory Double Patenting Rejection have been considered but are moot because of the introduction of newly amended feature “comprising at least one processor”. The abovementioned claims are now rejected under non-statutory Double Patenting Rejection since the newly amended feature makes the claims an obvious variant of the co-pending application listed below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-15, 17, 18 and 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1, 2, 5-15 and 18-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/557,340 (US 2024/0380455 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
All of the limitation(s) of claim 1 of the instant application are taught by claim 1 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 2 of the instant application are taught by claim 2 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 4 of the instant application are taught by claim 5 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 5 of the instant application are taught by claim 6 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 7 of the instant application are taught by claim 7 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 8 of the instant application are taught by claim 8 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 9 of the instant application are taught by claim 9 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 10 of the instant application are taught by claim 10 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 11 of the instant application are taught by claim 11 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 12 of the instant application are taught by claim 12 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 13 of the instant application are taught by claim 13 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 14 of the instant application are taught by claim 14 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 15 of the instant application are taught by claim 15 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 17 of the instant application are taught by claim 18 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 18 of the instant application are taught by claim 19 of the co-pending application reference.
All of the limitation(s) of claim 20 of the instant application are taught by claim 20 of the co-pending application reference.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a machine learning system, the machine learning system configured to: provide an output based on an input, the input representing a status of a wireless communication system comprising a plurality of radio nodes, the output representing an action for the wireless communication system, the machine learning system being configured for a phase ambiguity limitation for providing the output. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because element(s) such as ‘wireless communication system’ and ‘plurality of radio nodes’ do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea. Such elements are extra-solution components to the claim and are nothing more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a wireless technology environment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements such as “the input representing a status of a wireless communication system comprising a plurality of radio nodes’, and ‘the output representing an action for the wireless communication system’ do not add significantly more (inventive concept) to the claim, since these elements merely discuss what the input and output represents without mapping detailed steps/devices, thus representing a conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a machine learning system, the machine learning system configured to: provide an output based on an input, the input representing a status of a wireless communication system comprising a plurality of radio nodes, the output representing an action for the wireless communication system, the machine learning system being trained for a phase ambiguity limitation for providing the output. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because element(s) such as ‘wireless communication system’ and ‘plurality of radio nodes’ do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea. Such elements are extra-solution components to the claim and are nothing more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a wireless technology environment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements such as “the input representing a status of a wireless communication system comprising a plurality of radio nodes’, and ‘the output representing an action for the wireless communication system’ do not add significantly more (inventive concept) to the claim, since these elements merely discuss what the input and output represents without mapping detailed steps/devices, thus representing a conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “provide information for an input to a machine learning system; and be controlled based on an action provided by a machine learning system; and the machine learning system being configured to provide an output based on the input, the input representing a status of a wireless communication system comprising a plurality of radio nodes, the output representing an action for the wireless communication system, the machine learning system being configured for a phase ambiguity limitation regarding the output.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because element(s) such as ‘wireless communication system’ and ‘plurality of radio nodes’ do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea. Such elements are extra-solution components to the claim and are nothing more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a wireless technology environment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements such as “provide information for an input to a machine learning system; and be controlled based on an action provided by a machine learning system” do not add significantly more (inventive concept) to the claim, since these elements merely discuss an input having ‘information’ and a wireless system being controlled by a machine learning system and without mapping detailed steps/devices, thus representing a conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “provide information for an input to a machine learning system; and be controlled based on an action provided by a machine learning system; and the machine learning system being configured to provide an output based on the input, the input representing a status of a wireless communication system comprising a plurality of radio nodes, the output representing an action for the wireless communication system, the machine learning system being configured for a phase ambiguity limitation regarding the output; configured to be controlled based on the output provided by the machine learning system; and configured to provide information for the input for the machine learning system.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because element(s) such as ‘wireless communication system’ and ‘plurality of radio nodes’ do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea. Such elements are extra-solution components to the claim and are nothing more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a wireless technology environment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements such as “configured to be controlled based on the output provided by the machine learning system; and configured to provide information for the input for the machine learning system” do not add significantly more (inventive concept) to the claim, since these elements merely discuss an input having ‘information’ and a wireless system being controlled by a machine learning system and without mapping detailed steps/devices, thus representing a conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “the machine learning system being configured to provide an output based on the input, the input representing a status of a wireless communication system comprising a plurality of radio nodes, the output representing an action for the wireless communication system, the machine learning system being configured for a phase ambiguity limitation regarding the output, the method comprising: performing machine learning for the system.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because element(s) such as ‘wireless communication system’ and ‘plurality of radio nodes’ do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea. Such elements are extra-solution components to the claim and are nothing more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a wireless technology environment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements such as “performing machine learning for the system” do not add significantly more (inventive concept) to the claim, since these elements merely discuss a task being conducted by a machine learning system, thus representing a conventional computer functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Dependent claims 3-12 and 16-20 do not remedy the abstract idea rejection, therefore, claims 3-12 and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FITWI Y HAILEGIORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
FITWI Y. HAILEGIORGIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/FITWI Y HAILEGIORGIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2632