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
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of each of claims 1 and 11, “wireless, WD, “ should be -- wireless device, WD --.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to as being dependent on claims 1 and 11.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited elements (network node, wireless (device), downlink transmissions, processing circuitry, antennas) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on paper or in the mind/using mathematical concepts or using a generic computer without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 are drawn to a method and network node with processing circuitry configured to perform the method for determining a precoding matrix. The claim further lists steps for the method as “determining…” “selecting…”. According to the revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) — see MPEP 2106.04, the claim includes “abstract idea”s being the determining matrices and selecting rows, which as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or by hand (on paper). For instance, the step of determining a matrix implies manually putting on paper claimed matrix and performing manual calculations to perform the further steps of selecting claimed row and determining other matrices. Nothing precludes the determining and selecting steps from practically being performed in the human mind/ on paper. Accordingly, under the revised PEG, this falls under “mental processes.” Additionally, the steps for the method also fall under “mathematical concepts” since the matrix determination is a mathematical representation of the channel, data and interference without a practical application incorporating the precoding to actually perform transmission from the network node. Claims 2-20 are drawn to further mathematical steps for performing a method which may be performed in the mind/on paper/using a generic computer without significantly more. Thus, the claimed invention falls under one of the above groupings of ‘abstract ideas”. The Examiner cannot identify any claim limitation which provides for a practical application of the the precoding matrix and for communicating using the precoded data. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being drawn to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wigren et al. (US 20180310317 A1) discloses determining precoding matrix for downlink transmissions in complementing RAIT.
Rollins et al. (US 11218197 B2) discloses precoding matrix determination that supports RAIT.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights