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 .
The filing date of the application is 9/21/2021.
This action is in response to amendment and/or remarks filed on 11/10/2025. In the current amendments, claims 1, 3, 12-16, 18-20, 22, 24-34 have been amended, claim 2, 4-11, 20-21 and 23 has been cancelled. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 11/10/2025, the claim objections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 11/10/2025, the claim interpretation made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 11/10/2025, the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/24/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant asserts that “First, the claims do not recite a mental process because the steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Claim 1, for example, recites training an artificial neural network by generating magnitude and phase representations, generating first and second output signals from swapped components, detecting a reconstruction error, and updating parameters based on that error. This process involves iterative calculations, which the human mind cannot practically perform. The claims are thus directed to a specific, hardware-based implementation that goes beyond the practical capabilities of human cognition. Second, the claims merely involve mathematical concepts rather than reciting them. The USPTO August 4, 2025, Reminders Memo distinguishes between claims that set forth a specific mathematical formula and claims that describe a process that may rely on underlying mathematics. The proposed claims are analogous to Example 39 in the memo, which finds the limitation "training the neural network" to merely involve, not recite, an abstract idea. While the claimed training process inherently uses mathematical computations, the claims do not recite a specific mathematical formula or equation. Instead, they define a specific, concrete process for training an ANN. This contrasts with Example 47, where the claim was found to recite an abstract idea because it explicitly named the "backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm". The claims do not recite such specific mathematical algorithms. Because the claims do not recite a judicial exception, the eligibility analysis concludes here, and the claims are patent eligible. Even if the claims were construed as reciting an abstract idea, they are patent eligible because the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Claim1, for example, is directed to a technological solution to a technological problem: how to train a computer to automatically generate a signal representation that disentangles transformation-invariant content from transformation-variant information. This is a specific improvement in the field of digital signal processing. The memo clarifies that an important consideration is whether a claim recites a "particular way to achieve a desired outcome" as opposed to merely the idea of the outcome. The proposed claims do not merely recite the idea of creating an invariant representation. Instead, they recite a very particular and unconventional method for achieving it. Proposed claim1 details the specific steps of generating first and second outputs from magnitude and phase representations and using the resulting reconstruction error for training. This improves the computer's capabilities by enabling it to produce a new and useful data that is valuable for subsequent processing tasks”). (Remarks pg. 8-12)
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as a whole is still directed to abstract idea mental process. With regards to the arguments “claim 1 recites training an artificial neural network by generating magnitude and phase representations, generating first and second output signals from swapped components, detecting a reconstruction error, and updating parameters based on that error. This process involves iterative calculations, which the human mind cannot practically perform.” The training steps is still generic which has been treated under mere instructions to apply. Detecting first and second signal output, detecting errors under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) are still performable in the human mind using observation and evaluation method. The current claim is not similar to example 39 at all. Example 39 doesn’t have any mental process instead they are all additional elements therefore the claim is eligible. The current claim has at least 1 claim limitation that is a mental process therefore this argument is moot. The training steps from claim 1 is reciting generic computer components see MPEP 2106.05(f). The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/21/2021 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 12-19 and 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“which causes the magnitude representation of the first input signal and the magnitude representation of the second input signal to tend to become more similar to one another, the training step comprising: detecting an error signal; and updating the one or more parameters in dependence upon the error signal.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “A computer-implemented method of training an artificial neural network (ANN) by generating one or more learned parameters for use during a subsequent inference phase of the trained ANN… using the ANN and in response to the one or more parameters, generating a magnitude and phase representation of each of the first and second input signals……the method comprising: providing training data representing first and second input signals, the second input signal exhibiting one or more transformations relative to the first signal selected from a set of transformations; …and training the one or more parameters, in dependence upon a constraint”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “ANN is an autoencoder having at least: an input layer; one or more encoding layers configured to generate the magnitude and phase representations; one or more representational layers; one or more decoding layers configured to generate the first output signal and the second output signal; and an output layer.;”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“the first and second input signals represent windows of audio signals.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 13
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the audio signals comprise time-frequency representations of audio content.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 14
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“comprising generating the second input signal by applying more transformations to the first input signal.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 15
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the set of transformations comprises a set of orthogonal transforms”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 16
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the set of transformations comprises one or more selected from the list consisting of: a time shift between the first and second input signals: a tempo difference between a periodic sound represented by the first and second audio input signals; and a pitch transposition between sounds represented by the first and second audio input signals”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 17
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “An artificial neural network (ANN) trained by the method of claim 1”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 18
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “processing apparatus configured to implement the ANN of claim 17.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“An audio processing system comprising: receive first and second input signals; generate, using an artificial neural network, magnitude and phase representations of and output one or both of: a phase difference between phases represented by the respective phase representations, the phase difference being indicative of the one or more transformations between the first and second input signals; andone or more of the magnitude representations, the one or more magnitude representations being indicative of the first and second input signals in the absence of the one or more transformations.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “An audio processing system comprising: an analyser configured to generate magnitude and phase representations of first and second input signals,”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“comprising a classification ANN configured to detect one or more transformations in response to the phase difference.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “ANN”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 24
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “comprising a classification ANN configured to detect one or more signals in response to the one or more magnitude representations” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “processing apparatus configured to implement the system of claim 19” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 26
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“the one or more representational layers and the one or more decoding layers are configured to cooperate to provide a representation of first and second input signals at the one or more representational layers having a first component which is dependent upon one or more transformations, of a set of transformations, between the first and second input signals and a second component which is independent of the one or more transformation.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “An auto-encoder comprising: one or more encoding layers: one or more representational layers; and one or more decoding layers; in which the one or more encoding layers,” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 27
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the first component is a phase component and the second component is a magnitude component of the respective input signal.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 28
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the first and second input signals are audio signals.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 29
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“A method of signal processing comprising: receiving first and second input signals; and generating a representation of first and second input signals, the representation having a first component which is dependent upon one or more transformations, of a set of transformations, between the first and second input signals and a second component which is independent of the one or more transformations.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 30
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“the first and second input signals are audio signals, and the method further comprises detecting similarities between the first and second input signals in dependence upon the generated first and second components.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 31
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the representation is generated in a complex-value space”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 32
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the first component is represented by a rotation angle in the complex-value space and the second component is represented by a magnitude in the complex-value space.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 33
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the generating step-comprises detecting components of the representation with respect to eigenvectors of the set of transformations in the complex-value space, the eigenvectors for a given transformation being vectors in the complex-value space which do not change their vector direction when the given transformation is applied”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application [see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.], failing Step 2A Prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 34
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “storing instructions which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the method of claim 29.” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126