CTNF 18/699,432 CTNF 80838 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 9, and 18 recite the limitation of obtaining a signature vector corresponding to a beam and a first channel covariance matrix associated with a transmission of a beam from a first device to a second device, and generate, based on the signature vector and first channel covariance matrix, a beamforming matrix. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and using a series of mathematical calculations. For example, but for the “first device comprising processor and memory” language, the claim encompasses signature vector and first channel covariance matrix, and generating or deriving a beamforming matrix. The recitation of “the at least one memory and computer program configured to, with at least one processor, cause the first device to:” does not exempt the claim from the mental process and mathematical concept groupings because the beamforming matrix can be deduced from a formula or other calculation using the acquired vector and covariance matrix. Thus, the claim recites both a mental process and mathematical concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim simply recites the additional elements of a “a first device” comprising “at least one processor” and “at least one memory including computer code.” These additional elements are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that of a generic computer) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer/computing device. No outcome beyond the calculation is set forth, such as performing MIMO beamforming. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generically link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from the judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental process and mathematical concept used to generate the beamforming matrix (e.g., plugging in the signature vector and covariance matrix into a formula for generating a beamforming matrix) using a computer as a tool. While this type of automation may minimize or eliminate the need for using mathematical concepts for generating the beamforming matrix, there is no change to the computers or technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys. 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Service, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and this is directed to the judicial exception. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as disclosed above, the first device comprising processor and memory are at best the equivalent of adding the word “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 18 are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 1 and 9. Claims 2-8 and 10-16 disclose receiving information about a dominant beam, obtaining the signature vector based on the indicated dominant beam, receiving a reference signal, calculating angular spectrum power based on a determined second channel covariance matrix, obtaining the first channel covariance matrix by transforming the second channel covariance matric, and compensating to the second channel covariance matrix. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general means of gathering data for the calculation/generation of the beamforming matrix), and do not impose meaningful limits on how any of said gathering, calculation and generation is accomplished, and thus can be performed in any way known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as disclosed above, the processor is at best the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. And the identification and generation of matrices are extra solution activity which are considered insignificant for the reasons already stated above. Therefore, claims 2-8 and 10-16 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 8-10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Yang et al US 20170163327 ( hereinafter Yang ) . Regarding claim 1 , Yang discloses a first device (10, see fig. 1, [0042]) comprising: at least one processor (see [0010], [0078]); and at least one memory including computer program code (see [0010], [0078]), the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to: obtain: a signature vector corresponding to a beam which is in a first direction from the first device to a second device (steering vector, see [0049], [0052]), and a first channel covariance matrix associated with a transmission from the first device to the second device (R, see figs. 1 and 3, [0050]-[0051], [0053]); and generate, based on the signature vector and the first channel covariance matrix, a beamforming matrix to be used for the transmission from the first device to the second device (covariance weight matrix, see figs. 1 and 3, [0053]-[0054]). Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Yang further discloses wherein the first device is caused to obtain the signature vector by: receiving, from the second device, information about a dominant beam in the first direction (see 301, 801, figs. 3 and 8); and obtaining the signature vector based on the indicated dominant beam (see [0050]). Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Yang further discloses wherein the first device is a network device and the second device is a terminal device (see figs. 1 and 7, [0080]). Regarding claim 9 , Yang discloses a method comprising: at a first device (10, see fig. 1, [0042]), obtaining: a signature vector corresponding to a beam which is in a first direction from the first device to a second device (steering vector, see [0049], [0052]), and a first channel covariance matrix associated with a transmission from the first device to the second device (R, see figs. 1 and 3, [0050]-[0051], [0053]); and generating, based on the signature vector and the first channel covariance matrix, a beamforming matrix to be used for the transmission from the first device to the second device (covariance weight matrix, see figs. 1 and 3, [0053]-[0054]). Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 9, Yang further discloses wherein obtaining the signature vector comprises: receiving, from the second device, information about a dominant beam in the first direction (see 301, 801, figs. 3 and 8); and obtaining the signature vector based on the indicated dominant beam (see [0050]). Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 9, Yang further discloses wherein the first device is a network device and the second device is a terminal device (see figs. 1 and 7, [0080]). Regarding claim 18 , Yang et al discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions (see figs. 1 and 3, [0010], [0078]) which, when executed by a first apparatus (10, see fig. 1, [0042]), cause the first apparatus to perform: obtaining a signature vector corresponding to a beam which is in a first direction from the first apparatus to a second apparatus (steering vector, see [0049], [0052]); and obtaining a first channel covariance matrix associated with a transmission from the first apparatus to the second apparatus (R, see figs. 1 and 3, [0050]-[0051], [0053]); and generating, based on the signature vector and the first channel covariance matrix, a beamforming matrix to be used for the transmission from the first apparatus to the second apparatus (covariance weight matrix, see figs. 1 and 3, [0053]-[0054]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wigren et al US 20220038149 discloses beamforming device for the MIMO comprising a processor the computes a covariance matrix based on the first signal, a noise variance of the first signal, correcting the noise variance of a cross correlation vector in the covariance matrix by subtracting the noise variance from the cross correlation vector, and generating the first beamforming weight matrix using the cross correlation vector. Jia US 20100002801 discloses Using the covariance-based precoding matrix, the MIMO transmitter performs beam-forming operation. Song et al US 12,574,084 discloses a first device determines a set of beamforming vectors from the covariance matrix based on the number of dominant angles of arrival associated with the RS and the number of beams associated with the set of beamforming vectors. Kim et al US 20150049824 discloses a user equipment selecting a proper beamforming vector (or precoding matrix/vector) from a codebook corresponding to the number of antennas of the base station (that is, transmitter) and reports index of the selected result to the base station. In this codebook-based beamforming (or precoding), the amount of information transmitted from the user equipment to the base station depends on a size of the codebook. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM. 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, CHARLES N APPIAH can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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. /OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/699,432 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/699,432 Page 3 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/699,432 Page 4 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/699,432 Page 5 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/699,432 Page 6 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/699,432 Page 7 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/699,432 Page 8 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/699,432 Page 9 Art Unit: 3648
Prosecution Insights