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 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention of claims 1, 8 and 15 is directed to a method and system for training noise prediction model based on the received controlled-noise signal as input in order to output a predicted noise and determine a score function based on predicted noise and received controlled-noise signal is abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method and system for training noise prediction model based on the received controlled-noise signal as input in order to output a predicted noise and determine a score function based on predicted noise and received controlled-noise signal is just using input to generate output for determining score based on the output and input by using mathematical. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim includes a model to receive a received controlled-noise signal to generate a predicted noise by mathematical and determine a score function predicted noise and received controlled-noise signal using mathematical. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the score function does not indicate how a wireless channel is improved based on the score function.
As claims 2, 9 and 16, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only includes estimate a response of the wireless communication channel based on the score function based on mathematical.
As claims 3, 10 and 17, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only includes the response of the wireless communication channel is estimated based on a Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model (DDPM) sampling process based on mathematical.
As claims 4, 11 and 18, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only includes estimate the response of the wireless communication channel based on the DDPM sampling process for a number of iterations M; and determine an average response of the wireless communication channel based on the M response estimations based on mathematical.
As claims 5, 12 and 18, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only includes the average response of the wireless communication channel is determined based on at least one of a mean or median of the M response estimations based on mathematical.
As claims 6, 13 and 19, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only includes the response of the wireless communication channel is estimated based on a Denoising Diffusion Implicit Model (DDIM) sampling process based on mathematical.
As claims 7, 14 and 20, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only includes the at least one controlled-noise signal is a simulated signal generated based on a model of the wireless communication channel as input signal.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukawa [US 2021/0065731] in view of Van Gorp [US 2025/0079004].
As claims 1, 8 and 15, Matsukawa [US 2021/0065731] discloses an apparatus comprising: a transceiver configured to receive, over a wireless communication channel, at least one controlled-noise signal [Fig 1, Ref 102 discloses receiving a signal which includes noise, Par. 0020]; and a processor, operatively coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to: train, based on the at least one controlled-noise signal, a noise prediction model for the wireless communication channel [Fig 1, Ref 104 disclose a learning model for learning the received signal which includes noise, Par. 0021, 0030-0032]; generate, based on the trained noise prediction model, a noise prediction for the wireless communication channel [Par. 0030-0032, Fig 3a discloses model generating estimated noise]; and determine, based on the received at least one controlled-noise signal and the noise prediction, a [Par. 0039-0040 discloses cost for a score based on predicted noise and the received signal which includes noise]. However, Matsukawa [US 2021/0065731] fail to fully disclose determine, based on the received at least one controlled-noise signal and the noise prediction, a [Par. 0054, 0080, 0081, 0131 discloses a score function is determined based on noise of signal and predict a noise to denoise signal].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for determining, based on the received at least one controlled-noise signal and the noise prediction, a
As claims 2, 9 and 16, Matsukawa [US 2021/0065731]/ Van Gorp [US 2025/0079004] estimate a response of the wireless communication channel based on the score function [Matsukawa [US 2021/0065731] discloses at Par. 0039, 0046-0048 for determining a response based on cost and Van Gorp [US 2025/0079004] discloses at Par. 0074 discloses estimating a response based on score].
As claims 3, 10 and 17, Van Gorp [US 2025/0079004] discloses the response of the wireless communication channel is estimated based on a Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model (DDPM) sampling process [Par 0075 discloses DDPM].
As claims 6, 13 and 19, Van Gorp [US 2025/0079004] discloses the response of the wireless communication channel is estimated based on a Denoising Diffusion Implicit Model (DDIM) sampling process [Par. 0075 discloses DDIM].
As claims 7, 14 and 20, Matsukawa [US 2021/0065731] discloses the at least one controlled-noise signal is a simulated signal generated based on a model of the wireless communication channel [Par. 0055, 0061 discloses simulation].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18 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 and overcome 101 rejection.
As claims 4, 11 and 18, the prior arts fail to estimate the response of the wireless communication channel based on the DDPM sampling process for a number of iterations M; and determine an average response of the wireless communication channel based on the M response estimations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu [US 2025/0022100] discloses systems and methods are disclosed relating to systems and methods for multi-modal creative content generation using neural networks. The systems and methods can use one or more neural networks to generate outputs representative of creative and/or artistic characteristics of features indicated by input prompts. The one or more neural networks can include at least one text extension model to increase an amount of information of the input prompts. The one or more neural networks can be configured to generate high resolution outputs. The one or more neural networks can be used to implement end-to-end conversational interfaces for receiving input prompts and presenting creative and/or artistic outputs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights