DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20, 22-25 and 27 are pending in the application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 5-9, 14, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
5. Claim 1 recites “a module for…” This is not specifically directed at a statutory class and could be interpreted potentially as a software module configured to perform the steps of the claim. There is no further hardware recited in the claim that comprises the module.
6. Claim 1 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As analyzed under the current 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; first, the claim is directed to a proper statutory category. Second, under step 2A prong 1, the claim is directed to abstract ideas; specifically mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations (i.e. computing sum) and/or mental processes performed by pen and paper. They are highlighted below (underlined, italicized):
1. A module for processing a set of n input data comprising a reference datum, each input datum having a value, each input datum being associated with a weight, the processing module being configured to:
a) compute a first sum of weights associated solely with input data other than the reference datum which have values strictly less than the value of the reference datum,
b) compare the first sum with a first threshold,
c) compute a second sum of weights associated solely with input data other than the reference datum which have values strictly greater than the value of the reference datum, d) compare the second sum with a second threshold,
e) generate an output datum indicating whether or not the reference datum is a fractile of the set included in a predetermined subset of fractiles, only if both following conditions are satisfied: the first sum is less, strictly or not, than the first threshold and the second sum is less, strictly or not, than the second threshold.
7. As currently recited, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these highlighted limitations can be interpreted as mathematical concepts (i.e. computing asum) and/or mental processes performed by pen and paper.
Next, under step 2A prong 2, are there additional elements or combination of elements that apply or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The additional limitation of “a module” if intended to be hardware, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic machine) 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. Further the claim recites generate an output datum.” However, this step is recited as a general means of outputting data for use by the abstract idea, and thus fails to impose a meaningful limit on the remaining steps. Such data output operations could be attached to any calculation and is necessary for use of the judicial exception, amounting to mere gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Lastly, under step 2B are there limitations indicative of an inventive concept (i.e. significantly more)? No, the additional limitations 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 are 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, outputting data that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception represents mere data gathering/data output and is insignificant extra solution activity. The courts have found limitations directed to outputting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEPE 2106.05(d)(II). The claim is not patent eligible.
8. Claim 24 is rejected for similar reasons as presented above with reference to claim 1 as it recites the similar abstract ideas found in claim 1 above. There are no additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
9. Dependent claims 5-9, 14, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non- statutory for at least the reason stated above, as they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend. The claims depend from claim 1, but fail to include any additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite further limitations that abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental steps without reciting any additional limitations that make the claim any less abstract or that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
10. Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of “wherein a sum of the first threshold and the second threshold is equal to s+p, where s is the sum of the weights of the n input data, and where p C [-1, 1], p depending of whether or not the first sum must be strictly less than the first threshold and whether or not the second sum must be strictly less than the second threshold for the conditions to be satisfied,” and thus similarly rejected as claim 1 above for failing to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and for failing to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
11. Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of “wherein the predetermined set of fractiles consists of a single fractile,” and thus similarly rejected as claim 1 above for failing to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and for failing to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
12. Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of “wherein the predetermined set of fractiles comprises a median of the set of n input data,” and thus similarly rejected as claim 1 above for failing to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and for failing to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
13. Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of “wherein the n weights are all equal to 1,” and thus similarly rejected as claim 1 above for failing to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and for failing to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
14. Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of “wherein the set of n input data is a neighborhood of pixels in an image,” and thus similarly rejected as claim 1 above for failing to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and for failing to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
15. Claim 14 recites the abstract idea of “further configured to: b') compare the first sum and a third threshold, d') compare the second sum and a fourth threshold, e') generate an output datum indicating whether or not the reference datum is a fractile of the set included in a second predetermined subset of fractiles different from the subset of step e), only if the both following conditions are satisfied: the first sum is less, strictly or not, than the third threshold and the second sum is less, strictly or not, than the fourth threshold,” and thus similarly rejected as claim 1 above for failing to recite additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and for failing to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 1, 5-9, 14, 24, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-4, 10-11, 15-20, and 22-25 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims recite at least b) compare the first sum with a first threshold, c) compute a second sum of weights associated solely with input data other than the reference datum which have values strictly greater than the value of the reference datum, d) compare the second sum with a second threshold, e) generate an output datum indicating whether or not the reference datum is a fractile of the set included in a predetermined subset of fractiles, only if both following conditions are satisfied: the first sum is less, strictly or not, than the first threshold and the second sum is less, strictly or not, than the second threshold as in claims 1 and 24.
The closest prior art of record US Pub. 20120076432 teaches a median filtering apparatus and method for removing noise and improving an image quality with respect to all types of input images are provided. The median filtering apparatus may receive an input of N pieces of data, may form a data set including the N pieces of data, may calculate a difference array having an N.times.N size based on the N pieces of data in the data set, may sum component values for each column of the difference array, and may calculate an index of a column having a smallest value among sum values that are obtained by the summing operation and that are greater than or equal to a preset value.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest at least b) compare the first sum with a first threshold, c) compute a second sum of weights associated solely with input data other than the reference datum which have values strictly greater than the value of the reference datum, d) compare the second sum with a second threshold, e) generate an output datum indicating whether or not the reference datum is a fractile of the set included in a predetermined subset of fractiles, only if both following conditions are satisfied: the first sum is less, strictly or not, than the first threshold and the second sum is less, strictly or not, than the second threshold as in claims 1 and 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D YAARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1249. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571)272-3677. 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.
/MICHAEL D. YAARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights