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 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 2, line 5, “a historical modulated signal” should be replaced with “the historical modulated signal”.
Claims 3-10 are objected to for being dependent on claim 2.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Computer Readable Media (CRM) and Computer Readable Storage Media (CRSM) claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), will cover an ineligible signal perse unless defined otherwise in the application as filed. In this case, claim 19 is directed to a machine readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of the operations recited in claim 19. And, the instant specification, provides only open-ended examples of media embodiments. See specification, paragraph [0175], which states “The computer storage medium includes, but is not limited to, a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), a flash memory or other memory technologies, a compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disc (DVD) or other optical disk storages, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tapes, magnetic disk storages or other magnetic storage apparatuses, or any other medium that may be used to store desired information and may be accessed by computers. Furthermore, it is well known to those skilled in the art that the communication medium typically includes the computer-readable instruction, the data structure, the program module or other data in, for example, a carrier wave or a modulated data signal of other transmission mechanisms, and may include any information delivery medium.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Liu”, US 2022/0240162) in view of Jin et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Jin”, English translation of CN 109067688 A).
As to claim 1, Liu teaches a communication method, comprising: obtaining at least one group of historical signal samples, wherein the historical signal sample comprises a historical channel estimated value, a historical received signal and a historical modulated signal (i.e., historical channel estimate value, paragraph [0093]), wherein a pre-trained preset neural network is obtained by training a preset neural network by means of at least one group of the historical signal samples (paragraph [0093]).
Liu does not expressly teach inputting, in a case that a current channel estimated value and a received signal to be detected are obtained, the current channel estimated value and the received signal to be detected into a pre-trained preset neural network for signal detection, to obtain a signal estimated value of the received signal to be detected.
Jin further teaches inputting, in a case that a current channel estimated value and a received signal to be detected are obtained, the current channel estimated value and the received signal to be detected into a pre-trained preset neural network for signal detection, to obtain a signal estimated value of the received signal to be detected (Contents of the Invention, steps 1-4, Description of pictures, steps 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to input, in a case that a current channel estimated value and a received signal to be detected are obtained, the current channel estimated value and the received signal to be detected into a pre-trained preset neural network for signal detection, to obtain a signal estimated value of the received signal to be detected in order to combine communication knowledge into the neural network design, which would result in shortened network training time.
As to claim 17, Liu further teaches that the preset neural network comprises at least one of the following: a deep neural network; a convolutional neural network; a residual convolutional neural network; and a residual convolutional neural network with an attention mechanism (paragraph [0092]).
As to claim 18, Liu further teaches a signal detection device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory configured to store at least one program; wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, implements a communication method (claim 19).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Jin, and further in view of Baek et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Baek”, US 2020/0059306).
As to claim 19, Liu and Jin do not teach a computer-readable storage medium, storing a processor-executable program, wherein the processor-executable program, when executed by a processor, is configured to implement the signal detection method according to claim 1.
Baek further teaches a computer-readable storage medium, storing a processor-executable program, wherein the processor-executable program, when executed by a processor, is configured to implement a communication method (Fig. 15, paragraphs [0229]-[0230]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a computer-readable storage medium, storing a processor-executable program, wherein the processor-executable program, when executed by a processor, is configured to implement the signal detection method as taught by Baek to perform method of claim 1 with flexibility and ease.
As to claim 20, Liu and Jin do not expressly teach a non-transitory computer program product, comprising a computer program or a computer instruction, wherein the computer program or the computer instruction is stored in a computer-readable storage medium, a processor of a computer device reads the computer program or the computer instruction from the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor executes the computer program or the computer instruction, to enable the computer device to execute the signal detection method according to claim 1.
Baek further teaches a non-transitory computer program product, comprising a computer program or a computer instruction, wherein the computer program or the computer instruction is stored in a computer-readable storage medium, a processor of a computer device reads the computer program or the computer instruction from the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor executes the computer program or the computer instruction, to enable the computer device to execute a communication method (paragraphs [0229]-[0230]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a non-transitory computer program product, comprising a computer program or a computer instruction, wherein the computer program or the computer instruction is stored in a computer-readable storage medium, a processor of a computer device reads the computer program or the computer instruction from the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor executes the computer program or the computer instruction, to enable the computer device to execute the signal detection method according to claim 1 with flexibility and ease.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng et al., US 2023/0045011, Figs. 2, 10, and 11
Li et al., US 2023/0085924, abstract, Figs. 1-8, paragraphs [0072] and [0120]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRESHTEH N AGHDAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:30-7:00 ET.
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 M 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.
/FRESHTEH N AGHDAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights