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 12/17/25.
Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application.
• Claim 14 is currently amended.
• No claims are canceled.
• No claims are new.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection has been maintained because no amendment has been filed to overcome the abstract idea recited in the claims.
Applicant's arguments: Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
The Office Action asserts that the independent claims recite a mathematical formula or calculation. In particular, the Office Action identifies the claim limitation of "a request for precoder information for iterative demodulation of spatially separated streams." Applicant respectfully submits that the identified claim limitation does not recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
Examiner's response: In response to applicant’s argument that the identified claim limitation does not recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1 (see rejection below because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more).
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1.
(Step 1) The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (using an algorithm) that is used to demodulate the spatially separated streams, “a request for precoder information for iterative demodulation of spatially separated streams;- - -“, are mathematical formula or calculation (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, “An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, individually or in combination, to cause the apparatus to:,” 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, “transmit, from a user equipment (UE) - - - are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “and receive, from a network entity, an indication of a latest slot from which a precoder was evaluated. - - -, “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 transmitting and receiving information for demodulation.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation in the preamble of “an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, individually or in combination, to cause the apparatus to: transmit, from a user equipment (UE), and receive, from a network entity, an indication of a latest slot from which a precoder was evaluated” , are claimed generally as a tool to implement the judicial exception. For example, receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network (User equipment (UE) and network entity)) or storing/retrieving information in memory, 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 mathematical formula or calculation that is used to demodulate spatially separated streams
Regarding claims 2-12, respectively, depend on claim 1, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 1. Thus claims 2-12 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13.
(Step 1) The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (using an algorithm) that is used to demodulate the spatially separated streams, “a request for precoder information for iterative demodulation of spatially separated streams; - - -“, are mathematical formula or calculation (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, “An apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, individually or in combination, to cause the apparatus to:,” 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, “receive, from a user equipment (UE) - - - are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “and transmit an indication of a latest slot from which a precoder was evaluated. - - -, “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 transmitting and receiving information for demodulation.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation in the preamble of “an apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, individually or in combination, to cause the apparatus to: receive, from a user equipment (UE), and transmit an indication of a latest slot from which a precoder was evaluated” , are claimed generally as a tool to implement the judicial exception. For example, receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network (User equipment (UE) and network entity)) or storing/retrieving information in memory, 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 mathematical formula or calculation that is used to demodulate spatially separated streams
Regarding claims 14-17, respectively, depend on claim 13, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 13. Thus claims 17-17 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 13.
Regarding claim 18.
(Step 1) The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (using an algorithm) that is used to demodulate the spatially separated streams, “a request for precoder information for iterative demodulation of spatially separated streams; - - -“, are mathematical formula or calculation (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, “A method for wireless communication, comprising:” 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, “transmit, from a user equipment (UE) - - - are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “and receive, from a network entity, an indication of a latest slot from which a precoder was evaluated. - - -, “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 transmitting and receiving information for demodulation.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation in the preamble of “a method for wireless communication, comprising: transmit, from a user equipment (UE), and receive, from a network entity, an indication of a latest slot from which a precoder was evaluated” , are claimed generally as a tool to implement the judicial exception. For example, receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network (User equipment (UE) and network entity)) or storing/retrieving information in memory, 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 mathematical formula or calculation that is used to demodulate spatially separated streams
Regarding claims 19-29, respectively, depend on claim 18, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 18. Thus claims 19-29 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 18.
Regarding claim 30.
(Step 1) The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation (using an algorithm) that is used to demodulate the spatially separated streams, “a request for precoder information for iterative demodulation of spatially separated streams; - - -“, are mathematical formula or calculation (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, “A method for wireless communication comprising:” 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, “transmit, from a user equipment (UE) - - - are mere adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (mere data gathering, pre-solution activities) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional elements, “and receiving, from a network, an indication of a latest slot from which a precoder was evaluated. - - -, “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 transmitting and receiving information for demodulation.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation in the preamble of “a method for wireless communication, comprising: transmit, from a user equipment (UE), and receiving, from a network entity, an indication of a latest slot from which a precoder was evaluated” , are claimed generally as a tool to implement the judicial exception. For example, receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network (User equipment (UE) and network entity)) or storing/retrieving information in memory, 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 mathematical formula or calculation that is used to demodulate spatially separated streams
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.
7. 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 4, 2026