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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
2. Claims 1-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exemption without significantly more. Claims 1-3 and 16 recite a skywave massive MIMO-OFDM triple beam-based channel modeling method or computer device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no practical application is recited in the claims. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites selecting sampled vectors corresponding to recited sampling points that form a matrix. Each of the vectors are labeled as one triple beam and is composed of additional vectors. The matrix is multiplied with the vector and obtains a spatial-frequency-time domain vector. Claim 1 is a process. The claim recites a method in the preamble and recites a selecting step and a multiplying step. Claim 1 is directed to a judicial exemption. The claim is directed to nothing more than an abstract idea in that it recites a mathematical formula or equation. The claim recites multiplying the triple beam matric with the triple beam domain channel vector. Claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the mathematical equation or formula into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a selecting step carried out at a base station. A sampled triple steering vector is selected where that vector corresponds to a set of sampling points of a direction cosine, a time delay and a Doppler frequency to form a triple beam matrix and the sampled triple steering vectors is composed of a sampled spatial domain steering vector. This selection of an input to the multiplying step does not integrate the claim into a practical application. The preparing of the input of the triple beam domain channel vector to be multiplied by the triple beam matrix allows the resulting product to be produced by the multiplication. The preparing of an input to a multiplication, where that input has recited attributes, is well understood and routine conventional activity. Dependent claims 2 and 3 do not overcome this rejection under 35 USC 101. Claims 2 and 3 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a computer device wherein the device comprises a memory, processor and a computer program that is stored on the memory and is capable of running on the processor to implement the method of claim 1. Claim 16 is a machine. Claim 16 is directed to a judicial exemption. The claim is directed to nothing more than an abstract idea in that it recites a mathematical formula or equation. The claim recites multiplying the triple beam matric with the triple beam domain channel vector. Claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the mathematical equation or formula into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a selecting step carried out at a base station. A sampled triple steering vector is selected where that vector corresponds to a set of sampling points of a direction cosine, a time delay and a Doppler frequency to form a triple beam matrix and the sampled triple steering vectors is composed of a sampled spatial domain steering vector. This selection of an input to the multiplying step does not integrate the claim into a practical application. The preparing of the input of the triple beam domain channel vector to be multiplied by the triple beam matrix allows the resulting product to be produced by the multiplication. The preparing of an input to a multiplication, where that input has recited attributes, is well understood and routine conventional activity. The adding of additional elements such as the memory and processor does not implement the exception into a practical application. The elements do not amount to significantly more than the exemption since it generally links the use of the exception to a particular technological environment.
3. Claims 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites a skywave massive MIMO-OFDM triple beam based statistical model where a recited vector is expressed as a product of a recited matrix and a recited vector. The claim recites attributes of what the recited matrix is composed of. These attributes had been selected by a base station. The claim recites the label for the recited vectors and that the recited vector is composed of additional recited vectors. The claim is not a machine, an article of manufacture or a composition of matter. The recited model of claim 4 is not a method since no method steps are recited. Since claim 4 is not one of the four statutory classes, claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 101. Dependent claims 5 and 6 do not overcome this rejection under 35 USC 101. Claims 5 and 6 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons stated above. Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 due to dependance on claim 4. Claim 7 recites a method for grouping users and scheduling pilots including a grouping step and an allocating step. This method is one of the four statutory classes. Claim 7 does not recite an abstract idea, law of nature or a natural phenomenon. The method carries out a recited step based on the model of claim 4. If an independent claim comprising the recitation in claim 4 and the method of claim 7 were presented, it would overcome the rejection of claim 7-10 under 35 USC 101. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 due to dependance on claim 4. Claim 11 recites a method for estimating a skywave massive MIMO-OFDM channel including a receiving step and an obtaining step. This method is one of the four statutory classes. Claim 11 does not recite an abstract idea, law of nature or a natural phenomenon. The method carries out a recited step based on the model of claim 4. If an independent claim comprising the recitation in claim 4 and the method of claim 11 were presented, it would overcome the rejection of claims 11-15 under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 17 and 18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Shi, Ding et al. “Channel Estimation for HF Skywave Massive MIMO-OFDM with Triple Beam Based Channel Model” 2022 IEEE Global Communication Conference: Wireless Communications, 11 January 2023 (2023-01-11), pp: 1-16 discloses channel estimation for high frequency skywave massive MIMO-OFDM modulation. The abstract states “we introduce the concept of triple beams (TBs) in the space-frequency-time (SFT) domain and establish a TB based channel model using sampled triple steering vectors.” This reference was published before the filing of PCT/CN2023/079481 but after the filing of the priority document CN202210343774.9 on 4/2/2022. Li et al (US 2025/0184970) discloses a prediction model may be used to predict beam characteristics in a spatial domain, time domain, and/or frequency domain. By predicting beam characteristics using a prediction model, a UE may reduce the amount of power and/or overhead resources it uses as stated in paragraph 0086. Paragraph 0097 discloses the prediction model is used to estimate one or more channel characteristics. None of the references discloses each and every limitation of the claims invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M. BURD whose telephone number is (571)272-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/KEVIN M BURD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 2/13/2026