Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment (pre-Appeal) filed 06/18/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
• Claims last amended 06/30/25.
• No claims are canceled.
• No claims are new.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made (see rejection below).
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 1-20 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: a method claim (process).
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “determining a feedback parameter selection decision metric; selecting a particular method from a plurality of methods, based on the feedback parameter selection decision metric; determining, based at least in part on the particular method, and based on a configuration of a second device,” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “A method performed by a first device for improving signal quality by providing feedback to allow precoding of data, the method comprising:” are merely the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements, “one or more values associated with precoding weights for the second device to use to perform precoding of application to portions of data transmitted between the first device and the second device;” are mere generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The additional elements, “transmitting the one or more values to the second device,” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
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 a mental process to determine values to perform precoding of portions of data using a generic computer as a tool.
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.
under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the additional elements, “transmitting the one or more values to the second device,” are just transmitting data over a network, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept.
With regards to claim 11,
Step 1: a machine claim (device).
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “determine a feedback parameter selection decision metric; select a particular method from a plurality of methods, based on the feedback parameter selection decision metric; determine, based at least in part on the particular method, and based on a configuration of a second device,” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “A first device for improving signal quality by providing feedback to allow precoding of data, the first device comprising: a transceiver; and a processor configured to,” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements, “one or more values associated with precoding weights for the second device to use to perform precoding of application to portions of data transmitted between the first device and the second device;” are mere generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The additional elements, “transmit the one or more values to the second device,” are merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
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 a mental process to determine values to perform precoding of portions of data using a generic computer as a tool.
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.
under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the additional elements, “transmit the one or more values to the second device,” are just transmitting data over a network, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, additional elements recited in dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 12-13 and 15-17 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more as well.
Claims 2 and 12 recite additional elements that represents mere generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05 (h))., “on a first linear combination coefficient (LCC) energy and a second LCC energy, and wherein the second LCC energy is the first LCC energy with frequency domain (FD) compression applied.”
Claims 3, 5-7, 13 and 15-17 recite additional mental process, “determining that a value - - -“, selecting a sub-band- - -“
Claims 4,8-10, 14 and 18-20 recite additional elements directed to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
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 September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights