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
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed 04/08/26.
Claims 1-15 are remain pending in the application.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are currently amended.
The abstract objected to is withdrawn because of amendments.
Claims interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are withdrawn because of amendments.
Claims 12 and 13 objected to because of informalities are withdrawn because of amendments.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are withdrawn because of amendments.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter is withdrawn because of amendments.
Response to Arguments
(i) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/26 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
(a). Applicant's argument: Amended claim 1 recites specific limitations reciting
formulating an optimization to jointly obtain optimal receiver scheduling, power
allocation, and precoding. Thus, as described by the specification, Aoll may be
minimized for multiple access systems and results in a lower Aoll than SDMA and other related techniques due to superior performance under multi- receiver interference.
Thus, amended claim 1 recites one or more elements that, individually or in
combination, recite a particular and useful application of deploying an accurate trust
designation. Therefore, amended claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged
abstract idea. For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is directed to statutory
subject matter. Amended claims 8 and 15 recite similar subject matter and are thus
directed to statutory subject matter for at least similar features. Therefore, amended
claims 1, 8, and 15, and the claims that depend thereon, are patent-eligible under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
(b). Examiner's response: After careful review of the applicant's presented remarks
and position on the 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims, the Examiner respectfully
disagrees that the provided amendments and remarks remove the grounds for rejection
of the noted claims as abstract ideas.
To start, the additional limitation added by amendment “comprising
a processor configured to - - -“, estimating an interference “, “ on the receiving side’ , “wherein”; only serve to represent additional mental processes' to levels of scope within the claim, as supported in the cited portions of the MPEP and provided rationales in the grounds for rejection provided below.
The applicant has further formulated a response around the concept that the
claimed limitations are directed towards "improvements – method, receiver and emitter of the transmission system improve the transmission between a transmitter and a receiver in the technical field of communication, as explained in [0027]-[0030] of the publication of the application, and provide a technical advantage".
However, there is nothing in the actual scope of the claimed limitations that
specifically supports this position. As such the argument is not towards the merits of the
established limitations of the claims. As stated in the grounds for rejection in the
previous and current action, there is no specificity to the solving of a technical problem, but simply a statement of application ('merely applying'). As such, the grounds for rejection under USC 101 abstract idea, while modified to accommodate the amended portions of the claims, is respectfully maintained (see rejection below).
(ii) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
4. Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/26 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melzer et al (US 20070147536) (see IDS) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn because of amendments.
(ii) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/26 with respect to the rejection of claim 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) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn because of amendments.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 3-6, define parameters recited in matrices in claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. 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 interference covariance matrix ”. Thus, the claim recites a mental process related to math (abstract ideas).
(b) “estimating an interference a covariance matrix a spatial structure of an interference on the receiving side, wherein the 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, the receiver comprising a processor configured to implement” 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 interference covariance matrix , - - -, “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 interference covariance matrix ”. 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 an interference covariance matrix, - -- -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.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
10. 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 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights