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 § 112
Claim 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the baseband" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 6 recites a computer readable storage medium which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. Applicant specification states “The integrated modules may also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium if they are implemented as software function modules and sold or used as stand-alone products”. Functional descriptive material may be statutory if it resides on a "computer readable medium or computer-readable memory. The claim indicate a of lack structure, and do not define a computer readable medium and are thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e." When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized." -Guidelines Annex IV). The scope of the presently claimed invention encompasses products that are not necessarily computer readable, and thus Not able to impart any functionality of the recited program. The examiner suggests: Amending the claims(s) to embody the program on "Non-transitory readable storage medium ".
1. Amending the claims(s) to embody the program on "Non-transitory computer-readable medium" or equivalent; assuming the specification does Not define the computer readable medium as a "signal", "carrier wave", or "transmission medium" which are deemed non-statutory; or
2. Adding structure to the body of the claim that would clearly define a statutory apparatus.
Any amendment to the claims should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 1-6 recite(s) a method. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
• STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
• STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
o STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
o STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
o STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1-6 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for achieving reciprocal calibration of MIMO channel simulators.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
• Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
• Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
• Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims XXX comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, the limitations recite: Mathematical concepts.
(1) calibrate the power of the transmit and receive channels of the MIMO channel simulator
and obtain power calibration data;
(2) calculate to get the power P of all channels in the same state, and use it as the baseline
value for the current RF link state;
(3) calculate the difference between the calibration value and the baseline value for all
channels and give the difference to the baseband for processing falls into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas since calibrate the power of the transmit and receive channels of the MIMO channel simulator and obtain power calibration data; calculate to get the power P of all channels in the same state, and use it as the baseline value for the current RF link state;
calculate the difference between the calibration value and the baseline value for all
channels and give the difference to the baseband for processing is a mathematical calculation. Even though the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind with a physical aid (pen, paper and/or calculator) to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally perform a calculation using its mind. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a generic computer component(s), for example, processor, device, memory, etc. does not take the limitations out of the mental process and/or mathematical concepts groupings. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claim 1 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 discloses processing that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a method.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. 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.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
• adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 1-6 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
THEN FOR THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS:
If the dependent claim falls under the mental processes grouping, use this:
Regarding claim(s) 2-5: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s), Regarding claim(s) 2-5: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) 2. (Original) The method for achieving reciprocal calibration of MIMO channel simulators according to claim 1, characterized in that, the power P of all channels in the same state is calculated in step (2) described as: calculate the power P of all channels in the same state according to the following equation: €= E(P - P()"; where PL is the power of all channels in the RF state, and E is the total error of all channels. 3. (Original) The method for achieving reciprocal calibration of MIMO channel simulators according to claim 1, characterized in that, the said step (2) obtains the power P of all channels in the same state by least squares calculation.” falls into the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
If the dependent claim recites generic computer components, use this:
Regarding claim(s) 2-6, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): “processor “ is/are generic computer components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jindal et al. (US 2015/0163073) discloses a method of channel estimation is provided. The method includes determining a parametric model for a channel between a first transceiver and a second transceiver and transmitting a pilot signal to the second transceiver. The receiving transceiver is configured to determine a parameter of the parametric model based at least on the pilot signal and to estimate a channel transfer function coefficient for the channel based on the parameter and the parametric model (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7865. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am -3 pm.
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, Wesley L Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/KEITH FERGUSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights