DETAILED ACTION
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
Claim Interpretation. The interpretation of claim elements under 35 USC 112(f) is withdrawn based on amendment to claims and cancellation of claims.
Specification. The objection to the specification is withdrawn based on amendment to claims and cancellation of claims.
35 USC 112(a). The rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn based on amendment to claims and cancellation of claims.
35 USC 112(b). The rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn based on amendment to claims and cancellation of claims.
35 USC 101.
The rejections of claims 1, 5, 8,and 10 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn based on amendment to claims.
As to claims 6-7, 9, and 11, Applicant asserts that claims 6, and 9 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and are eligible for the same reasons asserted as to claim 1, and that dependent claims 7 and 11 incorporate all the limitations of independent claim 6 and are eligible for the same or similar reasons (Remarks p. 12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 6-7, 9, and 11 recite entirely different limitations, not substantively similar or the same as claim 1.
As to the substantive arguments set forth by Applicant, Applicant asserts that the additional limitations (of claim 1) are not abstract because it would be impractical for the human mind to perform, by use of pen and paper or by applying the generic computing component, capturing input sound by one or more microphones of a microphone array and generating, by the beamformer, output sound signal by emphasizing the target sound while suppressing other sounds, which are not insignificant extra solution activities, which improve a technical field of generating sound signals as beamforming with accuracy (Remarks p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, whether an element can practically be performed in the human mind or by use of pen and paper is a question relevant to the abstract idea of mental concepts, not mathematical concepts, and not additional elements. Second, the additional elements being asserted as to the improvement, and integration into a practical application are nowhere claimed in claims 6-7, 9, and 11.
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 6-7, 9, and 11 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 6, 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 mathematical concepts including mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations related to solving an optimization problem. Specifically, the claim recites the following mathematical equations, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations:
calculating an optimum value ~w* of a latent variable ~w based on an
PNG
media_image1.png
20
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lconvex represents a strongly convex function relevant to the latent variable ~w. Ld (d=1,…, D, D is an integer equal to or more than 1) represents a function relevant to the latent variable ~w,
C is an integer equal to or more than 1,
Sa,..., Sd,C (d=1.... D) represents a region that is obtained by dividing a domain of the function Ld into C closed convex sets,
∧
d,C (d=1,...,D, c=1,..., C) represents a convex function that is defined on the region Sd,c and that approximates the function Ld,
cd (d=1,..., D) represents a discrete variable that has a value of 1, ..., C, and
the calculating further comprising solving an optimization problem minc_1,…,c_D(min)(Lconvex(~w)
Σ
d=1D
∧
d,c(~w))) relevant to the latent variable ~w and the discrete variable c1,...,cD).
For these reasons, claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2A prong 2, the claim recites the additional elements: a latent variable optimization apparatus comprising: a processor configured to execute operations by the processor, and outputting the optimum value of the latent variable, thereby optimizing the latent variable. These additional elements merely generally link the mathematical concepts to a processor, in a manner that merely recites “apply it” in a processor. Furthermore the outputting the optimum value of the latent variable merely outputs the result of the math and is an insignificant extra solution activity. Furthermore, the element thereby optimizing the latent variable is merely and intended result of the math, not positively reciting any limitation in the structure of the processor. For these reasons, claim 6 is not integrated into a practical application.
Under the Step 2B analysis, as stated in the step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claims merely generally link generically recited elements in a manner that merely “applies” the math in a processor, and merely recites an intended result of the math. Furthermore, the outputting the optimum value of the latent variable comprises well understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106(d).II.i. transmitting over a network. Furthermore, what is novel is the mathematical concepts, which is not an inventive concept under the Alice Framework. The 'inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law or nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. MPEP 2106.05.I. See also MPEP 2106.05(a). "The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement". For these reasons, claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 6. Claims 7 further mathematically limit the abstract set forth in claim 6. Claim 7 recites not further additional elements that would require further analysis under Step 2A prong 2 or Step 2B.
Claim 9 recites a method that would be practiced by the apparatus of claim 6. All steps performed by the method of claim 8 are practiced by the apparatus of claim 6 as configured. The claim 6 analysis applies equally to claim 9.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as the filter coefficient optimization apparatus according to claim 6. All steps caused to be performed by the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claim 11 are practiced by the apparatus of claim 6 as configured. The claim 6 analysis applies equally to claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
For the reasons set forth in the office action dated 01/26/26, claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are allowed. Claims 6-7, 9, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101.
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 EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F.
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 on 571-272-3701. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights