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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 and 04/09/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 and 75-84 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed to a process.
Step 1: yes.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
generating,…first semantically encoded data representing the source data, wherein the first semantically encoded data is generated based on: (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally encode data by use of pen and paper with respect to the source data.)
decoding,…the first semantically encoded data based on the second computer knowledge base to generate semantically decoded data; (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally decode the data by use of pen and paper with respect to the second knowledge base.)
comparing…, the source data and the semantically decoded data; and (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally compare data by use of pen and paper with respect to the source data and decoded data.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
by a first computer system (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtaining,…, source data for transmission to a second computer system; (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering.)
a first computer knowledge base stored locally by the first computer system, and (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a second computer knowledge base shared between the first computer system and the second computer system; (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
selectively transmitting,…a pilot signal to the second computer system based on the comparison between the source data and the semantically decoded data. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering.)
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
by a first computer system (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtaining,…, source data for transmission to a second computer system; (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
a first computer knowledge base stored locally by the first computer system, and (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
a second computer knowledge base shared between the first computer system and the second computer system; (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
selectively transmitting,…a pilot signal to the second computer system based on the comparison between the source data and the semantically decoded data. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2 and analogous claim 76,
Claim 2 incorporates the analysis of the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
wherein the pilot signal represents a modification to the second computer knowledge base. (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3 and analogous claim 77,
Claim 3 incorporates the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
wherein at least one of the first computer knowledge base or the second computer knowledge base comprises data representing a context of the source data. (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4 and analogous claim 78.
Claim 4 incorporates the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
wherein the pilot signal is transmitted to the second computer system in response to determining that a difference between the source data and the semantically decoded data is greater than a threshold. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5,
Claim 5 incorporates the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 1:
generating, …, second semantically encoded data representing the semantically decoded data, wherein the first semantically encoded data is generated based on the first computer knowledge base; (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally generate encoded data by use of pen and paper with respect to the first knowledge base.)
comparing, …, the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data; (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally compare data by use of pen and paper with respect to the first and second encoded data.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
by the first computer system(e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
selectively transmitting, …, the pilot signal to the second computer system based on the comparison between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6,
Claim 6 incorporates the process of claim 5.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
wherein the pilot signal is transmitted to the second computer system in response to determining that a difference between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data is greater than a threshold. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7 and analogous claim 80,
Claim 7 incorporates the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 1:
generating, …, syntactically encoded data representing the first semantically encoded data; and (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally generate encoded data by use of pen and paper with respect to the semantically encoded data.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
by the first computer system (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
transmitting, by the first computer system, the syntactically encoded data to the second computer system. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8 and analogous claim 81,
Claim 8 incorporates the process of claim 7.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
wherein the syntactically encoded data is transmitted to the second computer system via a wireless network. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9 and analogous claim 82,
Claim 9 incorporates the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
wherein the first computer system is a user equipment (UE) of a wireless network. (e.g., field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10 and analogous claim 83,
Claim 10 incorporates the process of claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
wherein the first computer system is a base station of a wireless network. (e.g., field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 79,
Claim 79 incorporates the machine of claim 75.
Step 2A, prong 1:
generating second semantically encoded data representing the semantically decoded data, wherein the first semantically encoded data is generated based on the first computer knowledge base; (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally encode data by use of pen and paper with respect to the first knowledge base.)
comparing the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data; (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally compare data by use of pen and paper with respect to the first and second encoded data.)
determining that a difference between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data is greater than a threshold. (limitation is directed to a mental process, One can mentally decide for the signal to be transmitted by use of pen and paper with respect to the difference between the encoded data.)
Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
selectively transmitting the pilot signal to the computer system based on the comparison between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data and wherein the pilot signal is transmitted to the computer system. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 75,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 75 is directed to a machine.
Step 1: yes.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
An apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
The rest of the analysis for claim 75 is analogous to claim 1.
Regarding claim 84,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 84 is directed to a manufacture.
Step 1: yes.
Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B:
One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and
in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a
practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a
whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the
claim is not patent eligible.
The rest of the analysis for claim 84 is analogous to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 75-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soriaga et al (US Published Patent Application No. 20150358971, "Soriaga"), in view of Panah et al (US Published Patent Application No. 20120045007, "Panah").
In regard to claim 1, Soriaga teaches A method comprising: (Soriaga, paragraph 0020, “FIG. 8 is a flow diagram illustrating a method operational on a wireless communication device according to at least one example for facilitating non-orthogonal transmissions.”)
obtaining, by a first computer system, source data for transmission to a second computer system; (Soriaga, paragraph 0007, “In at least one other example, wireless communication devices [by a first computer system] may include a receiver circuit [a second computer system] adapted to receive a wireless transmission including a plurality of data streams non-orthogonally combined together.”)
generating, by the first computer system, first semantically encoded data representing the source data, wherein the first semantically encoded data is generated based on: (Soriaga, paragraph 0006, “In at least one example, wireless communication devices may include an encoder adapted to encode data in accordance with information that the data will be transmitted as part of a non-orthogonal transmission.”)
a first computer knowledge base stored locally by the first computer system, and (Soriaga, paragraph 0006, “According to at least one aspect of the disclosure, wireless communication devices are disclosed, which are adapted to facilitate non-orthogonal wireless communications. In at least one example, wireless communication devices may include an encoder [a first computer knowledge base ] adapted to encode data in accordance with information that the data will be transmitted as part of a non-orthogonal transmission.”)
a second computer knowledge base shared between the first computer system and the second computer system; (Soriaga, paragraph 0006, “transmitter circuit may also be included, where the transmitter circuit may be adapted to wirelessly transmit the encoded data output by the encoder.” And paragraph 0007, “A decoder [a second computer knowledge base] may be coupled to the receiver circuit to obtain the wireless transmission. The decoder may be adapted to decode at least one of the data streams.”)
decoding, by the first computer system, the first semantically encoded data based on the second computer knowledge base to generate semantically decoded data; (Soriaga, paragraph 0007, “A decoder may be coupled to the receiver circuit [a second computer knowledge base ] to obtain the wireless transmission. The decoder may be adapted to decode at least one of the data streams.”)
However, Soriaga do not explicitly teach comparing, by the first computer system, the source data and the semantically decoded data; and
selectively transmitting, by the first computer system, a pilot signal to the second computer system based on the comparison between the source data and the semantically decoded data.
Panah teaches comparing, by the first computer system, the source data and the semantically decoded data; and (Panah, paragraph 0008, “OFDM transmissions generally measure one or more properties of the communications channel, such as the channel matrix. One way to measure properties of the communications channel is to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams. The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate [comparing ] of one or more properties of the communications channel.”)
selectively transmitting, by the first computer system, a pilot signal to the second computer system based on the comparison between the source data and the semantically decoded data. (Panah, paragraph 0008, “The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate of one or more properties of the communications channel. The need to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams may adversely effect a data rate attainable in the communications system.”)
Soriaga and Panah are related to the same field of endeavor (i.e. knowledge representations). In view of the teachings of Panah, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Panah to Soriaga before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to increase accuracy. (Panah, paragraph 0055, “Accordingly, as more replicated data is inserted, the accuracy of the channel matrix estimate may increase.”)
In regard to claim 75, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale.
Soriaga teaches An apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: (Soriaga, paragraph 0112, “The apparatus, devices and/or components illustrated in FIGS. 1, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, and/or 17 may be configured to perform or employ one or more of the methods, features, parameters, and/or steps described in FIGS. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and/or 18.”)
In regard to claim 84, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale.
Soriaga teaches One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Soriaga, paragraph 0010, “Still further aspects of the present disclosure include processor-readable storage mediums storing processor-executable programming.”)
In regard to claim 2 and analogous claim 76, Soriaga and Panah teach the method of claim 1.
Panah further teaches wherein the pilot signal represents a modification to the second computer knowledge base. (Panah, paragraph 0025, “This disclosure is drawn, inter alia, to methods, systems, devices, and/or apparatus generally related to use of replicated data as a pilot symbol [pilot signal] in a communications system. Examples of transmission methods include inserting at least a portion of data from a first data stream into a second data stream to be transmitted over a communications channel. On receipt of the two data streams, examples of receiving methods include receiving the replicated data, decoding the replicated data using an estimated channel matrix, and generating an updated estimate of the channel matrix based, at least in part, on the replicated data.”)
Soriaga and Panah are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
In regard to claim 3 and analogous claim 77, Soriaga and Panah teach the method of claim 1.
Panah further teaches wherein at least one of the first computer knowledge base or the second computer knowledge base comprises data representing a context of the source data. (Panah, paragraph 0025, “This disclosure is drawn, inter alia, to methods, systems, devices, and/or apparatus generally related to use of replicated data as a pilot symbol in a communications system. Examples of transmission methods include inserting at least a portion of data from a first data stream [representing a context of the source data] into a second data stream to be transmitted over a communications channel. On receipt of the two data streams, examples of receiving methods include receiving the replicated data, decoding the replicated data using an estimated channel matrix, and generating an updated estimate of the channel matrix based, at least in part, on the replicated data.”)
Soriaga and Panah are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
In regard to claim 4 and analogous claim 78, Soriaga and Panah teach the method of claim 1.
Panah further teaches wherein the pilot signal is transmitted to the second computer system in response to determining that a difference between the source data and the semantically decoded data is greater than a threshold. (Panah, paragraph 0008, “OFDM transmissions generally measure one or more properties of the communications channel, such as the channel matrix. One way to measure properties of the communications channel is to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams. The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate [comparing ] of one or more properties of the communications channel. And 0064, “In block 730, subsequently received data may be decoded using the updated channel estimate. That is, signals received following the updating of the channel estimate may be decoded using the updated channel estimate. The updated channel estimate may improve decoding performance in some examples. [difference between the source data and the semantically decoded data is greater than a threshold, examiner would like to point out that the performance improving is interpreted as the greater than threshold, above in paragraph 0008 it describes the estimate as comparing properties which could be performance allowing examiner to interpret the estimate improving the performance meaning the metric of the performance is better than before.]”)
Soriaga and Panah are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
In regard to claim 5, Soriaga and Panah teach the method of claim 1.
Soriaga further teaches generating, by the first computer system, second semantically encoded data representing the semantically decoded data, wherein the first semantically encoded data is generated based on the first computer knowledge base; (Soriaga, paragraph 0007, “The plurality of data streams may be associated with a plurality of different devices. A decoder may be coupled to the receiver circuit to obtain the wireless transmission. The decoder may be adapted to decode at least one of the data streams.”)
However, Soriaga does not explicitly teach comparing, by the first computer system, the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data;
selectively transmitting, by the first computer system, the pilot signal to the second computer system based on the comparison between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data.
Panah teaches comparing, by the first computer system, the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data; (Panah, paragraph 0008, “OFDM transmissions generally measure one or more properties of the communications channel, such as the channel matrix. One way to measure properties of the communications channel is to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams. The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate of one or more properties of the communications channel [comparing]. The need to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams may adversely effect a data rate attainable in the communications system.”)
selectively transmitting, by the first computer system, the pilot signal to the second computer system based on the comparison between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data. (Panah, paragraph 0008, “The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate of one or more properties of the communications channel. The need to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams may adversely effect a data rate attainable in the communications system.”)
Soriaga and Panah are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
In regard to claim 6, Soriaga and Panah teach the methos of claim 5.
Panah further teaches wherein the pilot signal is transmitted to the second computer system in response to determining that a difference between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data is greater than a threshold. (Panah, paragraph 0008, “OFDM transmissions generally measure one or more properties of the communications channel, such as the channel matrix. One way to measure properties of the communications channel is to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams. The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate of one or more properties of the communications channel [pilot signal is transmitted]. The need to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams may adversely effect a data rate attainable in the communications system.” And 0064, “In block 730, subsequently received data may be decoded using the updated channel estimate. That is, signals received following the updating of the channel estimate may be decoded using the updated channel estimate. The updated channel estimate may improve decoding performance in some examples. [difference between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data is greater than a threshold, examiner would like to point out that the performance improving is interpreted as the greater than threshold, above in paragraph 0008 it describes the estimate as comparing properties which could be performance allowing examiner to interpret the estimate improving the performance meaning the metric of the performance is better than before.]”)
Soriaga and Panah are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
In regard to claim 7 and analogous claim 80, Soriaga and Panah teach the method of claim 1.
Soriaga further teaches generating, by the first computer system, syntactically encoded data representing the first semantically encoded data; and transmitting, by the first computer system, the syntactically encoded data to the second computer system. (Soriaga, paragraph 0006, “In at least one example, wireless communication devices may include an encoder adapted to encode data in accordance with information that the data will be transmitted as part of a non-orthogonal transmission.”)
In regard to claim 8 and analogous claim 81, Soriaga and Panah teach the method of claim 7.
Soriaga further teaches wherein the syntactically encoded data is transmitted to the second computer system via a wireless network. (Soriaga, paragraph 0107, “At 1804, the network entity 1700 may coordinate an amount of non-orthogonal multiple access available within at least a portion of the wireless network in response to the one or more detected conditions.”)
In regard to claim 9 and analogous claim 82, Soriaga and Panah teach the method of claim 1.
Soriaga further teaches wherein the first computer system is a user equipment (UE) of a wireless network. (Soriaga, paragraph 0035, “Such an access terminal 104 may also be referred to by those skilled in the art as a user equipment (UE), a mobile station (MS), a subscriber station, a mobile unit, a subscriber unit, a wireless unit, a remote unit, a mobile device, a wireless device, a wireless communications device, a remote device, a mobile subscriber station, a mobile terminal, a wireless terminal, a remote terminal, a handset, a terminal, a user agent, a mobile client, a client, or some other suitable terminology.”)
In regard to claim 10 and analogous claim 83, Soriaga and Panah teach the method of claim 1.
Soriaga further teaches wherein the first computer system is a base station of a wireless network. (Soriaga, paragraph 0103, “In at least some examples, the storage medium 1704 may include non-orthogonal multiple access management operations 1708 adapted to cause the processing circuit 1702 to manage the non-orthogonal multiple access within one or more wireless communication devices in a wireless network.” And paragraph 0104, “Thus, according to one or more aspects of the present disclosure, the processing circuit 1702 is adapted to perform (independently or in conjunction with the storage medium 1704) any or all of the processes, functions, steps and/or routines for any or all of the network entities described herein ( e.g., base station [a base station] 102, network entity 1700).”))
In regard to claim 79, Soriaga and Panah teach the apparatus of claim 75.
Soriaga further rteaches generating second semantically encoded data representing the semantically decoded data, wherein the first semantically encoded data is generated based on the first computer knowledge base; (Soriaga, paragraph 0007, “The plurality of data streams may be associated with a plurality of different devices. A decoder may be coupled to the receiver circuit to obtain the wireless transmission. The decoder may be adapted to decode at least one of the data streams.”)
However, Soriaga do not explicitly teach comparing the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data;
selectively transmitting the pilot signal to the computer system based on the comparison between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data.
wherein the pilot signal is transmitted to the computer system in response to determining that a difference between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data is greater than a threshold
Panah teaches comparing the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data; (Panah, paragraph 0008, “OFDM transmissions generally measure one or more properties of the communications channel, such as the channel matrix. One way to measure properties of the communications channel is to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams. The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate of one or more properties of the communications channel [comparing]. The need to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams may adversely effect a data rate attainable in the communications system.”)
selectively transmitting the pilot signal to the computer system based on the comparison between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data. (Panah, paragraph 0008, “The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate of one or more properties of the communications channel. The need to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams may adversely effect a data rate attainable in the communications system.”)
wherein the pilot signal is transmitted to the computer system in response to determining that a difference between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data is greater than a threshold. (Panah, paragraph 0008, “OFDM transmissions generally measure one or more properties of the communications channel, such as the channel matrix. One way to measure properties of the communications channel is to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams. The pilot symbols may be known to the receiver and the known pilot symbols may be compared with the received signals to generate an estimate of one or more properties of the communications channel [pilot signal is transmitted]. The need to insert pilot symbols into the transmitted data streams may adversely effect a data rate attainable in the communications system.” And 0064, “In block 730, subsequently received data may be decoded using the updated channel estimate. That is, signals received following the updating of the channel estimate may be decoded using the updated channel estimate. The updated channel estimate may improve decoding performance in some examples. [difference between the first semantically encoded data and the second semantically encoded data is greater than a threshold, examiner would like to point out that the performance improving is interpreted as the greater than threshold, above in paragraph 0008 it describes the estimate as comparing properties which could be performance allowing examiner to interpret the estimate improving the performance meaning the metric of the performance is better than before.]”)
Soriaga and Panah are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SKYLAR K VANWORMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am to 3:00 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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. 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.
/S.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights