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 Arguments
Remarks
The Examiner acknowledges the new claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s reference to allowable subject matter from the Non-Final Office Action dated 09/09/2025.
Drawings
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the applicant’s drawings, the Examiner withdraws the drawing objections due to amendments.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims, the Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections due to the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 101
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejection.
The applicant argues (Remarks page 9 paragraphs 1-3) that the claim is not directed to merely an abstract idea or error correction, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, see new reasons for rejection based on amendments below.
The applicant continues arguing (Remarks page 9 paragraph 4) that claim 1 integrates the filter and correction logic (the abstract idea) into a practical non-generic application in the field of signal processing hardware. The applicant continues, specifying additional elements such as input signal containing high frequency noise, memory and a processor to execute the steps of the claim. The applicant continues arguing that the claim is designed to overcome a known technical deficiency in digital filters. The applicant respectfully disagrees with the arguments. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims are generically linking to a particular field of use regarding, and the memory/processor are considered part of a generic computing device performing generic functions, which the abstract idea is applied to.
The applicant continues arguing (Remarks page 9 paragraph 5 – page 10 paragraphs 1-4) that claim 1 is a novel combination that is not routine, conventional or well-understood. The applicant continues arguing that the additional elements combined with the functional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract mathematical concept because the claim requires a novel, non-conventional correction logic and a mechanism to overcome a technical problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully notes that the claimed non-conventional correction logic the applicant seemingly is referring to in the arguments is the mathematical abstract idea. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that the technical problem which the applicant suggests is overcome by the claim, seemingly comes from the abstract idea itself, not an improvement upon technology.
The applicant continues arguing (Remarks page 10 paragraph 5) that the combination of elements recited in the amended claim 1 constitutes a novel, non-conventional mechanism for digital computing demonstrated by the fact that there is no prior art teaching or suggesting the claimed features in combination. The Examiner respectfully points out that this is not the criteria upon which 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are determined, the Examiner further respectfully points out that an abstract idea may not have relevant prior art, in part due to it being an abstract idea.
Unaddressed Features
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s comments.
New Claim
The applicant acknowledges the addition of claim 5.
35 U.S.C. 101 Regarding New Claim
The Examiner acknowledges and has fully considered the applicant’s arguments.
The applicant argues (Page 11 paragraphs 5-6) that the filter circuit of claim 5 specifies that the calculation utilizes three buffers, and that it is not a mere mathematical abstraction, it is a specific hardware-resource constraint designed to solve a technical problem identified in the specification. The Examiner respectfully agrees. Furthermore the applicant argues that the buffers of the claim solves a physical resource problem. The applicant further argues that is a technical solution by using a specific two-tiered correction logic, the claimed invention achieves high attenuation using the three buffers. The Examiner respectfully agrees that the limitations appear to be a technical solution.
The applicant further argues (Page 12 paragraphs 1-2) that the newly added claim is a practical application. The Examiner respectfully agrees.
The applicant further argues (page 12 paragraphs 3-6 that the combination of elements in claim with the additional element of the three buffers of claim 5 is a non-conventional technological solution, and furthermore is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner respectfully agrees.
Conclusion
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s conclusion statements.
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 1-4 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.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice Framework Step 1, claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, including a
mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following, mathematical relationships, and
mathematical formulas:
compare an input value and an output value, and correct an output value in accordance with an output of comparing, to compare a current input value with a last-time output value, add a first correction value to the current input value and to the last- time output value if a comparison result between the current input value and the last- time output value is greater than a predetermined value, and add a second correction value smaller than the first correction value to the current input value and to the last- time output value if the comparison result is smaller than or equal to the predetermined value, said comparison result being defined as an absolute value of a difference between the current input value and the last-time output value, said second correction value being smaller than the first correction value when a result of subtracting the second correction value to the first correction value is larger than 0, calculate a current output value based on the current input value and the last-time output value to each of which the first correction value or the second correction value has been added, and output the current output value.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, and Step 2B analysis, claim 1 recites additional elements of, “memories configured to store an input value and an output value”, “processor”, “instructions to cause the processor to”, “instructions further cause the processor”. The recited memory is simply storing data for the mathematical formulas, and is considered well-understood, routine and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). The recited processor is merely a generic computing device performing generic functions, see MPEP 2106.05(A)(ii). Furthermore claim 1 recites additional elements of “a signal including noise components that are equal to or higher than a cutoff frequency”, and “noise components” These additional element is merely generally linking to a particular field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The mere general linking to a particular field of use does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iv). Furthermore, the additional element of “thereby removing the noise components” is merely a direct consequence of the abstract idea, not from an improved technology, and thus does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) regarding “an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology”. Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “an input terminal to which a signal is input”, and “an output terminal configured to output an output value in accordance with an input value of the signal”. The additional elements of input and output terminals are generically recited for the purpose of an input/output used as part of the mathematical concepts, and are thus merely insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g), and thus are not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, the input/output terminals are well understood, routine, conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), and thus are not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For these reasons, claim 1 is neither integrated into a practical application nor amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 2 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1. Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 2 recites the following, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas:
“calculate the current output value based on the current input value and the last-time output value to each of which the first correction value or the second correction value has been added and based on the last-time input value.”
Claim 2 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 3 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 3 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 3 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 3 recites the following, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas:
“when calculating the output value, use a weight applied to the last-time output value greater than a weight applied to the current input value.”
Claim 3 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 4 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, and claim 2. Claim 4 merely further limits the mathematical concept set forth in claim 1.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 1, claim 4 recites an abstract idea, including a mathematical concept. Specifically, claim 3 recites the following, mathematical relationships, and mathematical formulas:
“when calculating the output value, use a weight applied to the last-time output value greater than a weight applied to the current input value.”
Claim 4 recites no further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as well as the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is 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.
The reasons for indication of allowable subject matter are substantially the same as the reasonings given in the Non-Final Office Action dated 09/09/2025.
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 JEROME ANTHONY KLOSTERMAN II whose telephone number is (571)272-0541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am ET - 3:30pm ET.
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.A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2182 /EMILY E LAROCQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182