DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant’s amendment/response filed on 1/05/2026 has been entered and made of record.
3. Applicant has amended claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-21, 23-26, 30, and 32-34. Applicant has not added any new claims. Claim 22 has been canceled. Currently, claims 1-21 and 23-34 are pending. Examiner refers to the action below.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 1/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative in essence argues that claims 1, 9, 17, and 23 amount to significantly more than an ineligible judicial exception, therefore, should not be rejected under 35USC 101. Applicant’s representative argues that amended claim 1 recites, in part, "calculate a plurality of sets of candidate quantization scale parameters and one or more assignment parameters indicating an assignment of one or more data values to one or more codebook entry values," "select, from the plurality of sets of candidate quantization scale parameters, a set of quantization scale parameters that minimizes the one or more errors of quantizing the one or more data values," and "cause the one or more data values to be compressed using the selected set of quantization scale parameters." is more than mathematical concepts. Further, applicant argues that amended claim 1 is analogous to example 41 of the 2019 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, and that the combination of additional elements integrates the exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s amended claims 1, 9, 17, and 23 comprise the process of “calculation….,” “select….,” “cause the one or more values to be compressed….,” and “stored…”. The step of “calculate…” is a straight forward mathematical step which can be done in the mind/or paper, the step of “select….” also can be done in the mind or paper and is not performing or transforming anything, the step of “cause the one or more data values to be compressed…” is not a positive step of compression and only intended compression, and the last step of “store……” is insignificant and is abstract. Further, applicant’s representative based the patentability of the claims on example 41 of the 2019 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Applicant’s representative states the subject matter of the claims is analogous to example 41. Example 41 in essence was deemed eligible since the mathematical concept transformed data and the transformed data is transmitted from one computer to a second computer, which integrated the mathematical concept into a practical application. None of this is taking place in applicant’s claims 1, 9, 17, or 23 so examiner does not see that these claims are analogous to example 41 of the 2019 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Examiner maintains the 35USC 101 rejection on the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 1-21 and 23-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following reasons are provided to evaluate subject matter eligibility.
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
With regard to (1), the analysis is a 'yes', claims 1, 9, 17, and 23 recite a process or machine/device/system, respectively.
With regard to (2A) Prong One, the analysis is a "yes". Claim 1 (similarly claims 9, 17, and 23) recite to "calculating one or more quantization parameters....," and "cause the one or more data values to be compressed...".
These claim limitations fall into the "mathematical concepts" group of abstract ideas. The steps of "calculating…., " “select…..,” and "causing..." "stored…” are generically recited because there is no description of how this is accomplished. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen/paper, can perform. One can perform the process using pen and paper, and the recitation of "processors," “circuitry,” and "memory" in the system/device claim is a mere use of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG.
With regard to (2A) Prong Two: the analysis is a "No". Claim 1, 9, 17, and 23 recite the additional elements of the "calculate one or more data quantization scale parameters and one or more assignment parameters indicating an assignment of one or more data values to one or more codebook entry values based, at least in part, on minimization of one or more errors of quantizing the one or more data values to the one or more codebook entry values," these additional elements represents mere data gathering and indexing the data all together that is necessary for use of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(1). The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to (2B): the pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, including the use of a particular machine or particular transformation. It has not been shown that the mental process allows the "technology" to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Claims 9, 17, and 23 are similarly rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-21, and 24-34 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are rejected for the same reasons and not repeated herewith.
Note: Regarding claims 1-21 and 23-34, there is no prior art rejection made since prior art was not found on the claimed subject matter but they are still rejected under 35USC 101.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
March 16, 2026