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 Amendment
2. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed 06/30/25.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
• No claims are currently amended (last amended 06/30/25).
• No claims are canceled.
• No claims are new.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a. Applicant’s argument: The rejection asserts that the claims are directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) without significantly more. However, it is respectfully submitted that when analyzed as a whole under the framework of Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025) (designated as precedential in November 2025) and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the present claims are directed to a specific, non-abstract improvement in the functioning of a computer.
More specifically, it is respectfully submitted that Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a technological improvement, not an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
In Desjardins, a similar 101 rejection was reversed, holding that claims improving the operation of a machine learning model-such as by reducing storage, speeding up training, or improving efficiency-are patent-eligible, not abstract ideas.
Similarly, the present claims are not directed to a mere abstract concept, but to a specific technological solution in the technical field of data precoding.
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.
(i) Additional limitations added by amendment includes ‘” for improving signal quality by proving feedback to allow precoding of data-- --” and “- - -the second device to use to perform precoding of - --“, is considered as “intended use” wherein claim language describes what an invention is for, rather than its structure. Incorporating an “intended use” amendment to the claim does not improve technology or a technical field and remove claims as directed to a judicial exception.
(ii) Applicant directs arguments to In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), wherein the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks- - -. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
Examiner respectfully points out that in Ex Parte Desjardins (claims to a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting “adjustments in values” to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values).
In current application, claims 1 and 11, recites steps of determining- - -, selecting- - -, determining - - -, transmitting- --). As argued on page 3, “-- -- the present claims are not directed to a mere abstract concept, but to a specific technological solution in the technical field of data precoding. 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, one or more values associated with precoding weights for the second device to use to perform precoding of portions of data transmitted between the first device and the second device; and transmitting the one or more values, to the second device, to be used by the second device for the precoding of the data provide for improved data precoding by using adaptive methods that dynamically switch between SB LCC selection method, WB, and SBG methods depending on an instantaneous channel, thereby providing consistent performance improvements.
Examiner will like to point to the claims themselves because claims done have these limitations recited. The claim should include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. And not mere claiming the idea of a solution or outcome (“transmitting the one or more values to the second device). The claim fails to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims are therefore still properly rejected under 101 abstract idea (see rejection below).
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- 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a mental process (abstract idea)
Step 1: a method/machine claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “determining a feedback parameter- - -”, selecting a particular method from a plurality of methods- - - ‘, determining, based at least in part on the particular method- - -“, are mental processes (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, “determining a feedback parameter,” is just general-purpose computer component, and thus it is just implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer and namely “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Specifically, the additional element, “selecting a particular method from a plurality of methods- - - are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “determining, based at least in part on the particular method- - -, “are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “weights for the second device to use to perform precoding of portions of data transmitted between the first device and the second device, based at least in part on the particular method- - -, “are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
As a whole, the claimed solution is not directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field, but instead use a computer as a tool for selecting a particular method from a plurality of methods
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 “A method performed by a first device, for improving signal quality by providing feedback to allow precoding of data, the method comprising: and transmitting the one or more values to the second device” are just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 select particular method (procedure) from a plurality of methods (procedures).
Regarding claims 2-10, respectively, depend on claim 1, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 1. Thus claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1. These claims continue to omit the technical solution or application or outcome (MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 11 is directed to a mental process (abstract idea)
Step 1: a device/machine claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “determining a feedback parameter- - -”, selecting a particular method from a plurality of methods- - - ‘, determining, based at least in part on the particular method- - -“, are mental processes (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, “determining a feedback parameter,” is just general-purpose computer component, and thus it is just implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer and namely “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Specifically, the additional element, “selecting a particular method from a plurality of methods- - - are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “determining, based at least in part on the particular method- - -, “are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “weights for the second device to use to perform precoding of portions of data transmitted between the first device and the second device, based at least in part on the particular method- - -, “are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
As a whole, the claimed solution is not directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field, but instead use a computer as a tool for selecting a particular method from a plurality of methods
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 “A first device, for improving signal quality by providing feedback to allow precoding of data, the first device comprising: and transmitting the one or more values to the second device” are just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activities (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 select particular method (procedure) from a plurality of methods (procedures).
Regarding claims 12-20, respectively, depend on claim 11, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 11. Thus claims 12-20 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 11. These claims continue to omit the technical solution or application or outcome (MPEP 2106.05).
Conclusion
6. 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.
/HELENE E TAYONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 March 17, 2026