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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “GEO” and “NGEO” without a full form first introduced, i.e. geostationary earth orbit (GEO). Claim 3 also recites variable “a” without explanation or description.
Claim 4 recites “PL”, “SH”, “DS”, “ASA”, “ESA”, “KF”, “XPR” without a full form first introduced.
Claim 6 recites “LOS”, “NLOS” without a full form first introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) establishing a satellite communication-oriented geometry-based stochastic channel model, initializing the trajectory and speed of a satellite, calculating a path loss, initializing the central positions of a cluster, calculating the delay, angle and power of the cluster, updating the large-scale and small scale parameters, deriving the statistical characteristics of the channel, and performing simulation analysis.
The claim recites a series of step or act. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The limitation of calculating a path loss, calculating the delay, angle and power of the cluster, updating the large-scale and small scale parameters, deriving the statistical characteristics of the channel, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, limitation (a) falls into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of “performing simulation analysis” falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited step of simulation analysis can practically performed in the human mind since the claimed step is very broad and generic that simple thoughts of any kind of analysis with a simple result could be done by human mind. Such mental evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites steps of establishing a satellite communication-oriented geometry-based stochastic channel model, initializing the trajectory and speed of a satellite, and initializing the central positions of a cluster. The limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to establishing a satellite communication-oriented geometry-based stochastic channel model, initializing the trajectory and speed of a satellite, and initializing the central positions of a cluster. The element amounts to obtaining data and data gathering for calculation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As for integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of initializing the trajectory and speed of a satellite is a field of use context. Thus, limitation (a) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Re Claims 2-8, claims recite additional calculation steps and additional elements that is mere indication of the field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, i.e. the transmitting end of the model is a satellite mobile receiving end, which the Supreme Court treated as merely indicating the field of use in which the recited correlations were identified. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, limitation (a) does not integrate the judicial exceptions, but instead represents a field of use or mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tong et al. (US 2024/0022927 A1) – system and method on wireless network architecture and air interface
Jiang et al. (US 2022/0368439 A1) – four-dimensional over the air performance test method for dynamic scene channel
Li et al. (US 2022/0163579 A1) – system and method of reconstructing non-Kronecker structured channels
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH T LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1862. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 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, 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.
/KENNETH T LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights