DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
3. Examiner acknowledged the applicants’ arguments on pages 1-3 of the applicants’ remark regarding to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. The Examiner will proceed with this examination as if the claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant's amendments/remarks.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/06/2026 with respect claims 1-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant contends that claims 1, 13, and 25 recite an abstract idea, where the claim as a whole is directed to improvements in a particular technology or technical field, and the claim "integrates [a] recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception" is not "directed to" the abstract idea and is therefore subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims are heavily centered on mathematical concepts and data manipulation. It recites mathematical operations such as "piecewise polynomial approximations," computing an "approximation of a total number of first symbol sequences," and using these mathematical values to "encode" a bit sequence. Mathematical formulas, calculations, and algorithms are classified as abstract ideas. These calculations, approximations, and data-encoding steps manipulate numbers and symbols in a way that can theoretically be performed by a human using a pen and paper or mentally. “Emphasis added.” See the 101 analyzing below. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes. The claims are heavily centered on mathematical concepts and data manipulation. It recites mathematical operations such as "piecewise polynomial approximations," computing an "approximation of a total number of first symbol sequences," and using these mathematical values to "encode" a bit sequence. Mathematical formulas, calculations, and algorithms are classified as abstract ideas. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. The claim recites additional element/s of “obtain subintervals;--- obtain a bit sequence having a bit sequence length;--- and transmit the second symbol sequence” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are generic computer function of data mere data gathering and data outputting. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element/s “A wireless communication device,” “a wireless transceiver ,” “one or more processors,” and “a wireless modulation operation” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-30 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing Mental Processes. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
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.
6. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim recites “A wireless communication device, comprising: a wireless transceiver; and one or more processors coupled to the wireless transceiver, the one or more processors being configured to: obtain, for a wireless modulation operation, subintervals over which to form piecewise polynomial approximations of a plurality of terms; obtain, utilizing the piecewise polynomial approximations of the plurality of terms, an approximation of a total number of first symbol sequences over a first alphabet having a first alphabet size, each respective symbol sequence of the total number of first symbol sequences having a first symbol sequence length and a first symbol sequence energy; obtain a bit sequence having a bit sequence length; encode the bit sequence, utilizing the approximation of the total number of first symbol sequences, to a second symbol sequence over a second alphabet having a second alphabet size, the second symbol sequence having a second symbol sequence length and a second symbol sequence energy; and cause the wireless transceiver to transmit the second symbol sequence.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a wireless communication device and, therefore, is a machine/manufacture, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites “form piecewise polynomial approximations of a plurality of terms; utilizing the piecewise polynomial approximations of the plurality of terms, an approximation of a total number of first symbol sequences over a first alphabet having a first alphabet size, each respective symbol sequence of the total number of first symbol sequences having a first symbol sequence length and a first symbol sequence energy;--- encode the bit sequence, utilizing the approximation of the total number of first symbol sequences, to a second symbol sequence over a second alphabet having a second alphabet size, the second symbol sequence having a second symbol sequence length and a second symbol sequence energy,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “obtain subintervals;--- obtain a bit sequence having a bit sequence length;--- and transmit the second symbol sequence” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are generic computer function of data mere data gathering and data outputting. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element/s “a wireless communication device” “a wireless transceiver ,” “one or more processors,” and “a wireless modulation operation” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. See the prior arts Ait Aoudia et al. (US 2021/0218607 A1) in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040] and Park et al. (US 20190289576 A1) in fig. 20 teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 13:
The claim recites “A method at a wireless communication device, comprising: obtaining, for a wireless modulation operation, subintervals over which to form piecewise polynomial approximations of a plurality of terms obtaining, utilizing the piecewise polynomial approximations of the plurality of terms, an approximation of a total number of first symbol sequences over a first alphabet having a first alphabet size, each respective symbol sequence of the total number of first symbol sequences having a first symbol sequence length and a first symbol sequence energy; obtaining a bit sequence having a bit sequence length; encoding the bit sequence, utilizing the approximation of the total number of first symbol sequences, to a second symbol sequence over a second alphabet having a second alphabet size and having a second symbol sequence length and a second symbol sequence energy; and causing a wireless transceiver of the wireless communication device to transmit the second symbol sequence.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites “form piecewise polynomial approximations of a plurality of terms obtaining, utilizing the piecewise polynomial approximations of the plurality of terms, an approximation of a total number of first symbol sequences over a first alphabet having a first alphabet size, each respective symbol sequence of the total number of first symbol sequences having a first symbol sequence length and a first symbol sequence energy;--- encoding the bit sequence, utilizing the approximation of the total number of first symbol sequences, to a second symbol sequence over a second alphabet having a second alphabet size and having a second symbol sequence length and a second symbol sequence energy,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “obtaining subintervals;--- obtaining a bit sequence having a bit sequence length;--- transmit the second symbol sequence” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are generic computer function of data mere data gathering and data outputting. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element/s “a wireless communication device,” “a wireless modulation operation,” and “a wireless transceiver” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. See the prior arts Ait Aoudia et al. (US 2021/0218607 A1) in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040] and Park et al. (US 20190289576 A1) in fig. 20 teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 25:
The claim recites “A wireless communication device, comprising: means for obtaining, for a wireless modulation operation, subintervals over which to form piecewise polynomial approximations of a plurality of terms; means for obtaining, utilizing the piecewise polynomial approximations of the plurality of terms, an approximation of a total number of first symbol sequences over a first alphabet having a first alphabet size, each respective symbol sequence of the total number of first symbol sequences having a first symbol sequence length and a first symbol sequence energy; means for obtaining a bit sequence having a bit sequence length; means for encoding the bit sequence, utilizing the approximation of the total number of first symbol sequences, to a second symbol sequence over a second alphabet having a second alphabet size and having a second symbol sequence length and a second symbol sequence energy; and means for causing a wireless transceiver of the wireless communication device to transmit the second symbol sequence.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a wireless communication device and, therefore, is a machine/manufacture, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites “form piecewise polynomial approximations of a plurality of terms;--- utilizing the piecewise polynomial approximations of the plurality of terms, an approximation of a total number of first symbol sequences over a first alphabet having a first alphabet size, each respective symbol sequence of the total number of first symbol sequences having a first symbol sequence length and a first symbol sequence energy;--- encoding the bit sequence, utilizing the approximation of the total number of first symbol sequences, to a second symbol sequence over a second alphabet having a second alphabet size and having a second symbol sequence length and a second symbol sequence energy,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “obtaining subintervals’--- obtaining a bit sequence having a bit sequence length;--- and transmit the second symbol sequence” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are generic computer function of data mere data gathering and data outputting. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element/s “a wireless communication device” “a wireless modulation operation,” and ““a wireless transceiver” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. See the prior arts Ait Aoudia et al. (US 2021/0218607 A1) in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040] and Park et al. (US 20190289576 A1) in fig. 20 teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-30 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing Mental Processes grouping. The dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application rather they are mere instructions for performing the Mental Processes. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims 1-30 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101, set forth in this office action. See the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance stated in the Office action dated 04/07/2026.
Examiner Notes
8. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
9. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL; 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069.
The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights