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 § 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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, recites in lines 2-3, “the frequency diversity”, “the nonlinear operation”, “ the transmitter” lack antecedent basis;
In claim 1, lines 4-5, “the message”, “the output”, the transmitted - - -“, “the channel- - “ lack antecedent basis;”
In claim 1, lines 9-12, “the nonlinearity introduced”, “the constellation”, “the nonlinearity function”, “the variance noise”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 1, lines 15-17, “the average block”, “the first estimative- - “, “the transmitted block”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 1, lines 19-21, “the distortion component”, “the distribution of the transmitted symbol”, the conjugate of the ---“. lack antecedent basis;
In claim 1, lines 26-29, “the respective variances - -“, “ the average block of subcarrier”, the next iterations- - -" lack antecedent basis;
In claim 2, “ the employed channel coding - - -“, -" lack antecedent basis;
In claim 4, recites in lines 2-3, “ the frequency diversity”, “the nonlinear operation”, “ the transmitter” lack antecedent basis;
In claim 4, lines 4-5, “the message”, “the output”, the transmitted - - -“, “the channel- - “ lack antecedent basis;”
In claim 4, lines 8-10, “the nonlinearity introduced”, “the constellation”, “the nonlinearity function”, “the variance noise”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 4, lines 12-15, “the average block”, “the first estimative- - “, “the transmitted block”, lack antecedent basis;
In claim 4, lines 17-21, “ the subcarrier –“, “the output of “, “the distortion component”, “the distribution of the transmitted symbol”, the conjugate of the ---“. lack antecedent basis;
In claim 4, lines 28-31, “the respective variances - -“, “ the average block of subcarrier”, the next iterations- - -" lack antecedent basis;
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 1-15 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.
For exemplary claim 1:
Step 1: a method claim (process).
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, ”the message given by formular Y= ( )- - -“, “computing an equalization operation- - -“, “calculating - --“, “Computing iteratively in each iteration----“, Computing in each iteration - - -“, calculating in each iteration -- -,” are mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations , or mathematical calculations).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “A method for a receiver for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing signals in which strong nonlinear distortion effects are utilized to exploit the frequency diversity introduced by the nonlinear operation at the transmitter, comprising:,” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (communication sessions for virtual and/or physical spaces; in other words, virtual/augmented/extended reality or metaverse) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements, “receive a signal---”, “receiving a channel estimate H”, receiving a Gaussian approximation- - -“, “receiving information- - -“, are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity).
The additional elements, “obtaining for each iteration an estimative of the output of nonlinearly of the transmitted,” are merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mathematical concepts to compute strong nonlinear distortion effects introduced by the nonlinear operation at the transmitter.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the additional elements, “receive a signal---”, “receiving a channel estimate H”, receiving a Gaussian approximation- - -“, receiving information- - -“,” and “obtaining for each iteration an estimative of the output of nonlinearly of the transmitted,,” are just receiving/ obtaining data over a network(channel), which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 4 (apparatus claim) recite similar claim limitations as in claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons as those of claim 1.
Moreover, additional elements recited in dependent claims 2, 5, 7-12 and 15 fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more as well.
Claim 2 recite insignificant extra-solution activities (“receiving the OFDM signal- - -“(pre-solution activity, data gathering) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)). These insignificant extra-solution activities are merely receiving/transmitting data over a network (channel) , which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 5, 7-12 and 15 recite additional mathematical concepts (an OFDM signal Y=[ 0, -- -0], “ - --obtained by computing Fourier Transform- - -“, “ obtained by shifted version of the Fourier Transform- - -“,” auxiliar estimates ---‘, “improved estimate- -“
Claims 3 and 6 recite additional elements directed to “wherein said calculation of the average block of subcarrier symbols comprises: a M-quadrature amplitude modulation (M-QAM) demodulator adequate to the constellation transmitted- - - -“, which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 13-14 recite additional elements directed to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (MPEP 2106.05 (h))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (US 7317770 B2) discloses a class of soft-input soft-output demodulation schemes for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channels, based on the sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) framework under both stochastic and deterministic settings. The stochastic SMC sampler generates MIMO symbol samples based on importance sampling and resampling techniques, while the deterministic SMC approach recursively performs exploration and selection steps in a greedy manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELENE E TAYONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1675. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/HELENE E TAYONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights