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 .
Specification
2. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal
term "comprising". Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for estimating----, means for estimating- - -, means for selecting ----, means for transmitting ---in claim 13 and means for receiving --- - in claim 14. Fig, 1, shows blank box (2) E for Emitter and blank box (3) R for receiver.
A review of the specification ([0040]-[0042], does not contain a detailed algorithm or description of the structure to perform the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) In claim 2, define parameters;
(ii) In claim 13, line 1, delete “also” between “system” and “comprising”; Grammatically not adding information or emphasizing a point. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-15 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.
In claim 1, “the interference”, “the spatial structure of the reception interference”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 1, “the emission channel”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 2, “the prediction---”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 10, “the interference”, “the spatial structure of the reception interference”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 10, “the emission channel”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 13, “the interference”, “the spatial structure of the reception interference”, the emission channel, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 14, “the interference”, “the spatial structure of the reception interference”, the emission channel, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 12, “so-called a second criterion” is not very clear, suggest doubts or questionable or not very sure.
In claims 13 and clam 14 recites “means plus function limitations. It is not clear what structure (blank box) is been recited showing sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The claims are indefinite because a functional limitation lacks sufficient structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. 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: (yes, Judicial Exception are recited),
(a) “selecting a technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel, in a group of techniques comprising a first technique based on a compressed version of said covariance matrix of the interference and at least one second technique, - - -,”. Thus, the claim recites a mental process related to math (abstract ideas).
(b) “estimating a covariance matrix of the interference, representative of the spatial structure of the reception interference- - -” this recites both mental process and a mathematical concept (abstract ideas).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application The claim recites additional elements:
Specifically, the additional element, “A communication method implemented in a transmission system comprising an emitter and a receiver, said the receiver implementing: characterized in that said the receiver further implements:” 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)).
The additional elements, “transmitting the emitter at least one piece of information enabling the emitter to determine a pre-coding matrix taking account of the covariance matrix of the interference according to the technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel selected by the receiver., - - -, “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 estimating a covariance matrix of interference and selecting techniques. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations “transmitting the emitter at least one piece of information enabling the emitter to determine a pre-coding matrix taking account of the covariance matrix of the interference according to the technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel selected by the receiver., - - -,”. However, this limitation is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (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)). In particular the combination of additional elements does not use the mental process in a specific manner to the practical application of estimating a covariance matrix of the interference, - -- -selecting a technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel. The limitations are no more than mere automation of mental processes.
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.
With regards to Claim 11, Claim recites similar limitations as in claim 1 above.
Thus claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, respectively, depend on claim 11, and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 11. Thus claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 11.
With regards to Claim 13, Claim recites similar limitations as in claim 1 above.
Thus claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 1 above.
With regards to Claim 14, Claim recites similar limitations as in claim 1 above.
Thus claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 1 above.
With regards to Claim 15, Claim recites similar limitations as in claim 1 above.
Thus claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 1 above.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In claim 15, “A computer program including instructions for implementing a method according to claim 1- - - ”, is recited; Under broadest reasoning interpretation/pain meaning , a program is software/codes without a medium, let alone non-transitory medium. The specification does not provide lexicographical/special definition of a computer program. Further, this broadest reasonable interpretation is consistent with the specification.
A review of the specification paragraphs [0208] and [0214] of the PG Pub. of the instant application further confirms that a computer program is merely software/codes without a medium. For example, [0208] recites “the code instructions of the computer program 320 are for example loaded into a RAM memory before being executed by the processor of the processing unit 310”. RAM memory is a medium and the computer program is just software/codes without a medium.
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under 101 program per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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)(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
12. Claim 1, 2, 11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melzer et al (US 20070147536)(see IDS)
With regards to claim 1, Melzer et al discloses a communication method implemented in a transmission system comprising an emitter and a receiver (see fig. 1, 102, [0018], one wireless communications device 102 in communication with another wireless communications device 106 through a wireless communication link 104) said the receiver (device 106 in fig. 1) implementing:
estimating a covariance matrix of the interference, representative of the spatial structure of the reception interference, characterized in that said the receiver further implements (see step 204 in fig. 2, [0039] In block 204, the receiver estimates the channel and the spatial covariance of the interference plus noise):
selecting a technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel, in a group of techniques comprising a first technique based on a compressed version of said covariance matrix of the interference and at least one second technique (see [0031], Several example alternatives for the content of the partial CISI feedback may include one or more of:[0035], (d) Direct Channel and Interference FeedBack (DCIFB), namely the full matrix {tilde over (H)}, quantized to some finite accuracy or approximated by some representative in a certain predefined "matrix codebook". [0036], (e) Precoding matrix {tilde over (V)}, namely the unitary matrix appearing in the Singular-Value Decomposition (SVD) {tilde over (H)}= {tilde over (D)}{tilde over (V)}', suitably quantized or codebook-represented), and
transmitting to said the emitter at least one piece of information enabling the emitter to determine a pre-coding matrix taking account of the covariance matrix of the interference according to said the technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel selected by said the receiver (see [0030] Thus, the (forward) link throughput can be increased, though at the cost of an extra feedback necessary for transferring Channel and Interference State Information (CISI) from the receiver to the transmitter. This leads to some tradeoff between the forward and backward link throughputs, and it is desirable to find some optimal compromise; namely, feeding back only partial CISI that captures the essence of the current conditions, and can be exploited by the transmitter to obtain most of the potential throughput gain in the forward link. [0031] Several example alternatives for the content of the partial CISI feedback may include one or more of:. [0036] (e) Precoding matrix {tilde over (V)}, namely the unitary matrix appearing in the Singular-Value Decomposition (SVD) {tilde over (H)}= {tilde over (D)}{tilde over (V)}', suitably quantized or codebook-represented.).
With regards to claim 11, Melzer et al discloses a communication method (see fig. 2 ) implemented in a transmission system comprising an emitter and a receiver ([0038], the method begins with block 202 wherein a receiver (106) receives one or more pilot(s) from a remote transmitter (102)), characterized in that said the emitter implements:
receiving at least one piece of information originating from the receiver and enabling the emitter to determine a pre-coding matrix taking account of a covariance matrix of the interference, representative of the spatial structure of the reception interference, according to a technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel selected by the receiver from among a group of techniques comprising a first technique based on a compressed version of the covariance matrix of the interference and at least one second technique ( claim 11 recites a method claim , limitations are similar to limitations recited in claim 1. Claim 11 is therefore rejected similarly as in claim 1 above. See similar rejection as in claim 1 above)
With regards to claim 13, Melzer et al discloses a receiver (see fig. 1, 106) of a transmission system also comprising an emitter, the receiver (see [0018], FIG. 1, an example communications environment 100 is depicted comprising one wireless communications device 102 in communication with another wireless communications device 106 through a wireless communication link 104) comprising means for estimating a covariance matrix of the interference, representative of the spatial structure of the reception interference, characterized in that the receiver further comprises:
means for selecting a technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel, in a group of techniques comprising a first technique based on a compressed version of the covariance matrix of the interference and at least one second technique, and means for transmitting to the emitter at least one piece of information enabling the emitter to determine a pre-coding matrix taking account of the covariance matrix of the interference according to the technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel selected by the receiver (claim 13 recites a receiver, limitations are similar to limitations recited in claim 1. Claim 13 is therefore rejected similarly as in claim 1 above. See similar rejection as in claim 1 above).
With regards to claim 14, Melzer et al discloses an emitter of a transmission system comprising the emitter and a receiver, characterized in that the emitter comprises: means for receiving at least one piece of information originating from the receiver and enabling the emitter to determine a pre-coding matrix taking account of a covariance matrix of the interference, representative of the spatial structure of the reception interference, according to a technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel selected by [[said]]the receiver from among a group of techniques comprising a first technique based on a compressed version of the covariance matrix of the interference and at least one second technique (claim 14 recites an emitter, limitations are similar to limitations recited in claim 1. Claim 14 is therefore rejected similarly as in claim 1 above. See similar rejection as in claim 1 above).
With regards to claim 15, Melzer et al discloses a computer program including instructions for implementing a method according to claim 1 (see similar rejection as in claim 1 above) when this program is executed by a processor (see [0079], Such operations may be performed by hardware components, or may be embodied in machine-executable content (e.g., firmware and/or software instructions), which may be used to cause a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform the operations.
With regards to claim 2, Melzer et al discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the selection of a technique for acquiring knowledge of the emission channel comprises the prediction of a transmission parameter associated with each technique of the group of techniques and the selection of the technique for which the transmission parameter meets a first criterion ( see fig. 1, 2, [0039], In block 204, the receiver estimates the channel and the spatial covariance of the interference plus noise. More particularly, according to one embodiment, the estimator 118 of the receiver generates a channel estimate and the full spatial covariance of the interference plus noise. In the SM mode of operation, we assume an Linear Minimum Mean Square Error (LMMSE) detection mechanism at the receiver, where each stream is regarded at the receiver as interference to the other stream. According to one embodiment, the estimator 118 may employ an enhanced maximum-likelihood estimator that utilizes the turbo decoder a-posteriori log-likelihood ratios to smooth-out the effects of the unknown transmitted symbols, thus providing the log-likelihood sequence required for the covariance estimation, although the invention is not limited in this respect. According to one embodiment, the MIMO-mode selection is based, at least in part, on a Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR) criterion as computed at the receiver. (see [0040] and fig. 1, According to one embodiment, the feedback element 120 may compute two SINR (or equivalently CQI) measures, one for the SM MIMO mode and the other for the STTD MIMO mode, and decides according to the associated capacities which mode is preferable)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
14. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melzer et al (US 20070147536)(see IDS) in view of Nam et al (US 20190341976 A1) (see IDS).
With regards to claim 10, Melzer et al discloses the method according to one of claim 1 further comprising transmitting a reference signal (See fig. 1 transmission between 102 though channel 104 and 106 is bidirectional. [0053], Turning to FIG. 3, the process begins when a transmitter (e.g., 102) sends MIMO pilots (predefined symbol sequences, known to all receivers, from all Tx antennas), but is not explicit about transmitting a reference signal to the emitter
However, Nam et al in same endeavor, wireless communication [0008] Here, the obtaining of the statistical channel information may include: transmitting a channel state information (CSI)-reference signal (RS) to the one or more pieces of UE; and receiving feedback of the statistical channel information measured on the basis of the CSI-RS from the one or more pieces of UE. [0013] Here, the obtaining of the instantaneous channel information may include: transmitting CSI-RSs to which the group-specific beamforming matrices have been applied or CSI-RSs to which the group-specific beamforming matrices have not been applied to the pieces of UE; and receiving feedback of the instantaneous channel information measured on the basis of the CSI-RSs to which the group-specific beamforming matrices have been applied or the CSI-RS to which the group-specific beamforming matrices have not been applied from the pieces of UE.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the references and to modify Melzer et al’ s wireless communication system with Nam et al wireless communications method, including receiving feedback of the statistical channel information measured on the basis of the CSI-RS from the one or more pieces of UE technique. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve reduce system complexity for performing multi-user (MU)-MIMO. (Nam et al et [0024]), MPEP 2143 Rational C.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Orange (WO2021123579)( see IDs) discloses estimating a covariance matrix of the interference, which is representative of the spatial structure of the interference between receiving antennas .
(ii) Chen et al (US 20160344459) discloses estimating an impairment covariance matrix, computing an interference correlation metric based on the determinant of the estimated impairment covariance matrix, selecting an interference correlation threshold,
16. 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 November 15, 2025