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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 19 August 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant amends claim 7 to correct for the antecedent issue. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, applicant argues independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the limitations of amplitude partitioning and run-length encoding operations cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that claim 1 recites waveform data processing at a scale and complexity which could not be performed in the human mind, and employs run-length encoding and binary search decoding of arrays which involves computational complexity that exceeds human mental capabilities (Remarks, pg. 15). However, the claims do not recite any particular limitation which defines a scale or complexity that preclude the steps from being performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper. The claim involves the steps of dividing a discretely sampled waveform into a sequence of equally sized amplitude ranges and, as a consequential thereof, also dividing the waveform into variably sized time ranges, defining these ranges as bins, and counting the number of samples which fall into each bin. This activity of defining ranges and counting samples amounts to a mental process of organizing and counting. The step of generating the running sum array similarly amounts to a mental step of organizing the counted data into a list (the running sum array). The step of performing run-length encoding on the data as recited in claim 4 similarly amounts to a mental step of counting and removing consecutive duplicate values. The step of binary search decoding as recited in claim 7 is activity which is similarly considered a mental step of searching through and picking out entries from the running sum array. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application by providing an improvement to computer technology by addressing technical problems related to memory usage, execution time, and scalability in the technical field of encoding waveforms.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged technical improvements are not found recited in the claims, nor do any of the limitations in the claims specifically address memory usage (beyond the well understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing data), execution time, or scalability. Additionally, when consulting the accompanying specification, any alleged improvements to memory usage, execution time, and scalability are described using optional language such as “can employ” or “can provide” rather than affirmatively demonstrating any alleged improvement and only generally alleges that the claimed invention is an improvement over existing methods without providing citation or example (e.g. “the low memory, time and/or computing power employed for encoding, decoding and/or storing the waveform 109 and/or data 117 can be much lower than comparatively employed by existing waveform synthesis techniques and/or approaches” ¶ [0036]). Therefore, the abstract idea recited in the claim is not integrated into a practical application and any additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components in a general computer environment.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant argues the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, Applicant alleges that each element contributes a unique functional improvement which solves a technical problem in a way not found in the prior art (Remarks, pg. 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the steps of defining bins, counting samples that fall into each bin, generating an array of sample counts using run-length encoding, and decoding the array using a binary search method all amount to a sequence of steps which can be performed mentally in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Furthermore, the additional elements have been determined to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea in a general computing environment using generic computer components, and the step of storing data has been determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The abstract idea is also not integrated into a practical application by solving a technical problem because the claims do not recite any solution to an alleged technical problem. Therefore the steps which constitute an abstract idea in combination with the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The argument that the claim elements in combination amount to significantly more by providing a solution not found in the prior art is similarly unpersuasive at least in light of the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Therefore the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the applied references Wegener in view of Trakimas do not disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element of the claim. Specifically, Applicant argues neither Wegener nor Trakimas teaches defining amplitude ranges corresponding to integer amplitude output levels of the DAC, wherein the respective amplitude ranges are equally sized and mutually exclusive (Remarks, pg. 22-25).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s Remarks cite Trakimas Fig. 3c and various corresponding sections of the reference which disclose a particular method of utilizing the ADC of Fig. 4a to address problems inherent to waveform sampling which result in partitioning the waveform into amplitude levels of varying size, whereas the limitation recited in claim 1 requires uniformly sized amplitude levels. However, Trakimas discloses several different strategies for partitioning a waveform, including partitions which are uniform in amplitude size, such as shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 3a, and Fig. 4b, which are cited in the reasons for rejection in the Office Action. Specifically, Trakimas discloses that waveform sampling as shown in Fig. 3a (which illustrates a waveform sampling with uniform amplitude size and variable time size) can be generated by the ADC of Fig. 4a with a fixed quantizer resolution (Trakimas, Fig. 3a and pg. 924 ¶ 1). While Fig. 3c illustrates a proposed solution to waveform sampling by varying the quantizer resolution, this solution does not preclude the waveform sampling system from operating with a fixed quantizer resolution to generate a sampled waveform with uniformly sized amplitude levels as illustrated in Fig. 3a. Therefore the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas does teach each and every element of independent claim 1 as detailed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below, and the rejection is maintained.
The foregoing also applies to independent claims 8 and 15, and their rejections are maintained for at least the same reason(s).
Applicant’s arguments that the dependent claims are allowable due to their dependence from the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are moot based on the discussion regarding the maintained rejection of the independent claims above. Therefore, the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained at least for the same reason(s).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The fourth limitation of claim 1 recites encoding a compressed representation of a waveform. The fifth limitation recites defining amplitude ranges corresponding to a DAC. The sixth limitation recites defining time ranges. The seventh limitation recites defining a set of bins associated with the amplitude and time ranges. The eighth limitation recites placing each point of a set of points in a corresponding bin. The ninth limitation recites generating a running sum array of counts of the respective bins. Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the foregoing limitations fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The first limitation recites a digital to analog converter (DAC), the second limitation recites a memory, and the third limitation recites a processor, but these limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The tenth limitation recites storing data, but this limitation is at most considered insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, and the step of storing data is considered insignificant extra solution activity. The storing of data is determined to be well-understood, routine, and convention under step 2B, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, wherein the courts have recognized such computer function as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Thus, the claims do not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and fails to ensure the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 8 and 15 recite a computer implemented method and a computer program product that recite the same limitations as the system of claim 1; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies and the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The foregoing also applies to claims 2, 9, and 16 since they recite determining waveform symmetry and removing a portion of bins accordingly. Similarly, the limitations of the claims fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 16 recites a processor, but this amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, the claims do not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. Lastly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The foregoing also applies to claims 3, 10, and 17 since they recite generating a vector consisting of count of points in each bin. Similarly, the limitations of the claims fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas and no additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Lastly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The foregoing also applies to claims 4, 11, and 18 since they recite employing run-length encoding to generate an array. Similarly, the limitations of the claims fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 18 recites a processor, but this amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, the claims do not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. Lastly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The foregoing also applies to claims 5, 12, and 19 since they recite generating a signal based on the compressed waveform. Similarly, the limitations of the claims fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite a DAC, and claim 19 recites a processor, but these amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, the claims do not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. Lastly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The foregoing also applies to claims 6 and 13 since they recite the running sum integer values correspond to output levels of the DAC. Similarly, the limitations of the claims fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite a DAC, but this amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, the claims do not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. Lastly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The foregoing also applies to claims 7, 14, and 20 since they define using a binary search to decode the array. Similarly, the limitations of the claims fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 20 recites a processor, but this amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Thus, the claims do not provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. Lastly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener (US 20080103710 A1), hereinafter known as Wegener, in view of Trakimas (“An Adaptive Resolution Asynchronous ADC Architecture for Data Compression in Energy Constrained Sensing Applications”), hereinafter known as Trakimas.
Regarding claim 1, Wegener teaches a system comprising:
…a memory that stores computer executable components (Wegener, ¶ [0111]); and
a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components (Wegener, ¶ [0110] that:
encodes a set of points defining a waveform into a compressed representation of the waveform (Wegener, ¶ [0011]), wherein each point of the set of points comprises a respective amplitude value and a respective time value (Wegener, Fig. 5; x-axis as time, y-axis as amplitude), and wherein the encoding the compressed representation of the waveform comprises:
…generating a running sum array consisting of tuples respectively corresponding to the bins, wherein each tuple consists of a respective identifier of the bin and a respective running sum integer value corresponding to the bin, wherein each running sum integer value is based on a count of points in the corresponding bin, and wherein the corresponding representation of the waveform consists of the running sum array (Wegener, Fig. 12 and ¶ [0056], [0061]); and
store, using a non-transitory computer readable medium, the compressed representation of the waveform (Wegener, ¶ [0046]).
Wegener does not explicitly teach:
a digital to analog converter (DAC)…;
defining respective amplitude ranges corresponding to integer amplitude output levels of the DAC, wherein the respective amplitude ranges are equal sized and mutually exclusive,
defining respective time ranges, where the respective time ranges are variably sized and mutually exclusive,
defining a set of bins, wherein each bin is associated with a distinct combination of amplitude range of the respective amplitude ranges and time range of the respective time ranges,
placing each point of the set of points in a corresponding bin of the set of bins, wherein an amplitude value of the point falls within the amplitude range of the corresponding bin and a time value of the point falls with the time range of the corresponding bin, and…
However, Trakimas teaches:
a digital to analog converter (DAC)… (Trakimas, pg. 925, Fig. 4(a));
defining respective amplitude ranges corresponding to integer amplitude output levels of the DAC, wherein the respective amplitude ranges are equal sized and mutually exclusive (Trakimas, pg. Figs. 1, 3(a), 4(b); section IV. ADC Architecture, ¶ 1),
defining respective time ranges, where the respective time ranges are variably sized and mutually exclusive (Trakimas, Figs. 1, 3(a), 4(b)),
defining a set of bins, wherein each bin is associated with a distinct combination of amplitude range of the respective amplitude ranges and time range of the respective time ranges (Trakimas, Figs. 1, 3(a), 4(b); the sampling scheme with equal steps in amplitude and varying steps in time divides the waveform into a sequence of partitions, or bins),
placing each point of the set of points in a corresponding bin of the set of bins, wherein an amplitude value of the point falls within the amplitude range of the corresponding bin and a time value of the point falls with the time range of the corresponding bin (Trakimas, Fig. 3(a), 4(b), and section IV. ADC Architecture, ¶ 3-4), and…
Wegener and Trakimas are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of waveform encoding and decoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system with waveform compression of Wegener with the asynchronous waveform sampling method of Trakimas. This combination would have been obvious because asynchronous sampling creates the potential for large compression of data (Trakimas, pg. 921, I. Introduction ¶ 2, ln 8) and because the effective output resolution of asynchronous sampling is independent of quantizer resolution (Trakimas, pg. 922, ¶ 2).
Claims 8 and 15 recite a computer implemented method and a computer program product that perform the function of the system of claim 1; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Wegener further teaches:
generating a vector consisting of respective counts of points in each of the bins (Wegener, ¶ [0057], [0061]).
Claims 10 and 17 recite a computer implemented method and computer program product that perform the function of the system of claim 3; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 3 above. Wegener further teaches:
generating the running sum array further comprises employing run-length encoding on the vector to generate the running sum array (Wegener, ¶ [0056]-[0057]).
Claims 11 and 18 recite a computer implemented method and computer program product that perform the function of the system of claim 4; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener, in view of Trakimas, and further in view of Vankka (“A Direct Digital Synthesizer with an On-Chip D/A-Converter”, 1998).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly teach:
determining that the waveform has symmetry, and
removing a portion of the bins based on the symmetry prior to generating the running sum array (Vankka, section III. Sine Memory Compression, ¶ 2-3).
Claims 9 and 16 recite a computer implemented method and a computer program product that perform the function of the system of claim 2; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener, in view of Trakimas, and further in view of Miller (“Arbitrary Waveform Generator Using DAC and DMA”), hereinafter known as Miller.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination does not teach:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further:
generates, via the DAC, an electronic signal based on the compressed representation of the waveform.
However, Miller teaches:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further:
generates, via the DAC, an electronic signal based on the compressed representation of the waveform (Miller, Fig. 3-1 and pg. 1 ¶ 1).
Miller is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of waveform generation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveform sampling and compression system of the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas to include the arbitrary waveform generation method of Miller. This modification would have been obvious because arbitrary waveform generators are capable of generating analog waveforms of any form (Miller, section 1.1, ¶ 1).
Claims 12 and 19 recite a computer implemented method and computer program product that perform the function of the system of claim 5; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener, in view of Trakimas, and further in view of Frambach (US 11,843,388 B2), hereinafter known as Frambach.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 1 above. Trakimas further teaches:
wherein a successive order of the respective running sum integer values… (Trakimas, Fig. 1; depicts successive groups of data).
The combination does not explicitly teach:
… directly corresponds to a register of successively increasing order of the integer amplitude output levels of the DAC.
However, Frambach teaches:
…directly corresponds to a register of successively increasing order of the integer amplitude output levels of the DAC (Frambach, col. 2, ln 20-31).
Frambach is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of signal processing using digital-to-analog converters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveform sampling and compression system of the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas to include the DAC with shift register of Frambach. This modification would have been obvious because the DAC with shift register is capable of generating an output waveform according to predefined discrete steps (Frambach, col. 5, ln 19-23).
Claim 13 recites a computer implemented method that performs the function of the system of claim 6; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener, in view of Trakimas, further in view of Miller, and further in view of Moore (US 20140181052 A1), hereinafter known as Moore.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wegener in view of Trakimas and Miller teaches the invention substantially as claimed. See the rejection of claim 5 above. The combination does not teach:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further employs a binary search to decode the running sum array to decompress the compressed representation of the waveform prior to generating the electronic signal.
However, Moore teaches:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further employs a binary search to decode the running sum array to decompress the compressed representation of the waveform prior to generating the electronic signal (Moore, ¶ [0010] and [0034]).
Moore is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of run-length encoding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the run-length encoding of Wegener to include the binary search of the CRLA of Moore. This combination would have been obvious in order to accelerate access to an individual row to extract data values (Moore, ¶ [0010]).
Claims 14 and 20 recite a computer implemented method and computer program product that performs the function of the system of claim 7; therefore the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN DAVID WARNER whose telephone number is (703)756-5956. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571)272-3702. 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.
/J.D.W./
Jonathan David WarnerExaminer, Art Unit 2182
(703) 756-5956
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights