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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of Patent Application 18/904175 on 10/2/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 8 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 15 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 8, and 15 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to modifying a physical resource block. Specifically, the claims recite aligning a center of a Physical Resource Block (PRB) in a received time domain samples of Long-Term Evolution (LTE) channel bandwidth to a center of the LTE channel bandwidth; upon aligning the center of the PRB with the center of the LTE channel bandwidth, performing decimation on the received time domain samples at a predefined number of decimation stages sequentially to obtain a decimated time domain samples of a predefined sample rate; performing Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) operation on the decimated time domain samples using the FFT of the predefined point to obtain corresponding frequency domain samples related to the decimated time domain samples; and extracting valid tones from the frequency domain samples based on valid tone indices to obtain a modified PRB, which is grouped within the Mathematical Concepts and is similar to the concept of (mathematical relationships OR mathematical formulas or equations OR mathematical calculations) OR OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the base station, non-transitory computer readable medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the base station, non-transitory computer readable medium perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein the modified PRB is transmitted to a processing unit for decoding the modified PRB. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a the base station, non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of modifying a physical resource block. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the base station, non-transitory computer readable medium perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein the modified PRB is transmitted to a processing unit for decoding the modified PRB. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of modifying a physical resource block. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 further describe the abstract idea of modifying a physical resource block. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1,8, 15, the limitation “aligning a center of a Physical Resource Block (PRB) in a received time domain samples of Long-Term Evolution (LTE) channel bandwidth to a center of the LTE channel bandwidth” is unclear because it is not know how the center of the PRB is determined from the samples, what the aligning is doing, and what the centers aligning encompasses.
Regarding claims 1,8, 15, the limitation “and extracting valid tones from the frequency domain samples based on valid tone indices to obtain a modified PRB” is unclear because it is a circular definition of two unclear terms namely “valid tones” and “valid tone indices”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1. Kumar, U.S. Patent App 20110033014, teaches a RF receiver that comprises: (i) a complex mixer for converting a version of the RF signal to a complex baseband signal comprising an in-phase component and a quadrature component; (ii) one or more analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) connected to the complex mixer for digitizing the in-phase component and the quadrature component of the complex baseband signal; and (iii) a digital signal processor (DSP) connected the one or more ADCs. The DSP is programmed to mitigate interference in the complex baseband signal by a process that comprises the steps of: (i) performing at least one cross correlation operation involving L-length segments of the digitized in-phase and quadrature components of the complex baseband signal; and (ii) concatenating the cross-correlated L-length segments of the digitized in-phase and quadrature components of the complex baseband signal to produce digitized interference mitigated in-phase and quadrature components of the complex baseband signal.
2. Thaly, U.S. Patent App 20090115896, teaches a method and apparatus for automatic audio standard detection in terrestrial broadcast signals is disclosed. In one embodiment, a method of detecting automatic audio standard for terrestrial broadcast includes scanning for each known audio frequency standard of interest in a current band energy spectrum in an incoming broadcast signal using a standard of non standard energy estimation algorithm, such as Goertzel DFT or FFT based algorithm for a predetermined time interval. At each known audio frequency standard of interest, energy is computed using the associated standard or non standard energy estimation algorithm within the predetermined time interval. The computed energy at each known audio frequency standard of interest is then compared to predetermined threshold energy. At each known audio frequency standard of interest, it is determined whether the audio frequency standard of interest is detected based on the outcome of the comparison
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John FOLLANSBEE can be reached on (571)272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights