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 .
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 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 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: The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “calculating, by the controller, an envelope correlation coefficient (ECC) between two antennas of the communication apparatus according to the TRP values,” are mathematical concepts (organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations).
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, comprising: measuring, by a controller of a test system, an over-the-air (OTA) total radiated power (TRP) associated with each of a plurality of transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) indices,” 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, “configured for a communication apparatus to perform single-layer transmissions to obtain a plurality of TRP values each associated with a TPMI index, wherein each TPMI index indicates a precoding matrix for a single-layer transmission; and” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
When considered 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 mathematical concepts to measuring the correlation between multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) antennas in mobile communications 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, “configured for a communication apparatus to perform single-layer transmissions to obtain a plurality of TRP values each associated with a TPMI index, wherein each TPMI index indicates a precoding matrix for a single-layer transmission; and” are just receiving/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 9:
Step 1: The claim recites a system(device)
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “calculating an envelope correlation coefficient (ECC) between two antennas of the communication apparatus according to the TRP values,” are mathematical concepts (organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations).
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 test system, comprising: a simulator which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with a communication apparatus; and a controller communicatively coupled to the simulator such that, during operation, the controller performs operations comprising:” 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, “indicating the simulator a plurality of transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) indices” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements, “to be configured for the communication apparatus to perform single-layer transmissions; instructing the whole test system to measure an over-the-air (OTA) total radiated power (TRP) associated with each of transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) indices; and” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-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 mathematical concepts to measuring the correlation between multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) antennas in mobile communications 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, “to be configured for a communication apparatus to perform single-layer transmissions to obtain a plurality of TRP values each associated with a TPMI index, wherein each TPMI index indicates a precoding matrix for a single-layer transmission; and” are just receiving/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 17:
Step 1: The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “calculating, by the controller, a worst case two transmission (2TX) total radiated power (TRP) deviation value according to the ECC and a pair of TRP values associated with a single-antenna configuration,” are mathematical concepts (organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations).
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, comprising: obtaining, by a controller, an envelope correlation coefficient (ECC) between two antennas of a communication apparatus,” 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, “obtaining, an envelope correlation coefficient (ECC) between two antennas of a communication apparatus” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-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 mathematical concepts to measuring the correlation between multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) antennas in mobile communications 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, “obtaining, an envelope correlation coefficient (ECC) between two antennas of a communication apparatus” are just receiving/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.
Claims 2-5, 10-13 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))
Claims 6, and 14 recite additional insignificant extra-solution activities, “wherein the TPMI indices comprise at least a pair of TPMI indices with a 180 degree of phase shift, and wherein the method further comprises: performing, by the controller, a first type of combination on the TRP values associated with the TPMI indices in the pair to obtain a common part of the TRP values; and performing, by the controller, a second type of combination on the TRP values associated with the TPMI indices in the pair to obtain a variation part of the TRP values, wherein the first type of combination comprises an add operation and the second type of combination comprises a subtraction operation.”. “obtain a common part- - - , obtain a variation part- - , add operation- - - ” (pre-solution activity, data gathering), (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). These insignificant extra-solution activities are merely receiving/transmitting data over a network, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 8 and 16 recite additional mathematical concepts, wherein the TPMI indices comprise multiple TPMI indices with a single-antenna configuration, and wherein the method further comprises: calculating, by the controller, a worst case two transmission (2TX) TRP deviation value according to the ECC and the TRP values associated with the TPMI indices with the single-antenna configuration.
Claims 7 and 15 recite additional elements directed to “---wherein the TPMI indices comprise at least a first pair and a second pair of TPMI indices with a 180 degree of phase shift and a third pair of TPMI indices with a single-antenna configuration, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the controller, a first difference between an average of the TRP values associated with the TPMI indices in the first pair and a summation of the TRP values associated with the TPMI indices in the third pair and a second difference between an average of the TRP values associated with the TPMI indices in the second pair and the summation of the TRP values associated with the TPMI indices in the third pair; and determining, by the controller, a capability of the communication apparatus based on whether the first difference and the second difference are less than a predetermined threshold.”, which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims1 and 9 recites “configured for a communication apparatus to perform single-layer transmissions to obtain a plurality of TRP values each associated with a TPMI index, wherein each TPMI index indicates a precoding matrix for a single-layer transmission” is interpreted as an intended use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), set forth in this Office action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior arts cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach the limitations as recited in claims 7 and 15 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kazmi et al (US 20140078973 A1) discloses network node for providing form factor information and for using form factor information in radio network operations, and to wireless devices and network nodes implementing these methods.
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 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights