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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7C first column last row, change “>=8” to “>=9”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6-7 recites the limitation "the radix kernel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as only “a first radix kernel” and “a second radix kernel” are declared prior. For examination purposes, “the radix kernel” will be interpreted as “each radix kernel”.
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.
Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a method, which is a statutory category of invention (Process).
At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A method for performing a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT), the method comprising:
receiving a first input at a first radix kernel of the FFT comprising signed binary integers, the signed binary integers of the first input each representing a component of a complex number associated with a time domain signal and having a bit width (mathematical relationship);
applying a fixed left shift to the signed binary integers of the first input (mathematical process, mental process);
performing a first radix kernel operation on the shifted first input at a higher bit resolution than the bit width (mathematical process);
applying a fixed right shift to signed binary integers of an output of a butterfly of the first radix kernel operation which are mapped to the bit width to provide a first output of the first stage of the FFT (mathematical process, mental process);
determining a leading bit count of signed binary integers in the first output (mathematical process, mental process);
receiving the first output at a second radix kernel of the FFT which is a second input to the second radix kernel;
applying an adaptive left shift to signed binary integers of the second input based on the leading bit count (mathematical process, mental process);
performing a second radix kernel operation on the shifted second input at the bit resolution higher than the bit width (mathematical process);
and applying an adaptive right shift based on the leading bit count to signed binary integers of an output of a butterfly of the second radix kernel operation (mathematical process, mental process) which is mapped to the bit width to provide a second output of the second stage of the FFT (mathematical relationship);
wherein the adaptive left shift and adaptive right shift determines a resolution of the FFT (mathematical relationship).
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of receiving a first input and receiving the first output are merely insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception As set forth in step 2A prong 2 analysis, the functions of receiving a first input and receiving the first output is recognized by the courts as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it is directed to the mathematical concept and/or mental process of until the first input is transformed into the frequency domain.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “providing an output of one radix kernel to an input of another radix kernel”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the providing is recited at a high level of generality and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 3-9, the claims merely recite functions for determining the leading bit count, properties of the outputs, properties of the kernel operations, or properties of the adaptive shifting, that further mathematically limit the mathematical concepts, or provide additional mathematical functions, of claim 1. They do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding claim 10, under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “lookup table which indicates…”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the lookup table is recited at a high level of generality and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as the lookup table performs an insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting information based on types of information. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activity performed by the lookup table is recognized by the courts as well-understood routine and conventional of storing and retrieving information. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim includes similar limitations as claim 10. The analysis of claim 10 applies equally to claim 11.
Regarding claims 12, 15-20, the claims are directed to a system that performs the method of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-11, respectively. The system of claims 12, 15-20 performs all steps of the method of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-11, respectively. The analysis of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-11, respectively applies equally to claims 12, 15-20.
Regarding claims 13, the claims merely recite functions for properties of the kernel operation, or properties of the butterfly operation that further mathematically limit the mathematical concepts, or provide additional mathematical functions, of claim 12. They do not include additional elements that would require further analysis under steps 2A prong 2 and step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office Action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 1, 12, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including: performing a first radix kernel operation on the shifted first input at a higher bit resolution than the bit width;
applying a fixed right shift to signed binary integers of an output of a butterfly of the first radix kernel operation which are mapped to the bit width to provide a first output of the first stage of the FFT;
determining a leading bit count of signed binary integers in the first output;
applying an adaptive left shift to signed binary integers of the second input based on the leading bit count;
performing a second radix kernel operation on the shifted second input at the bit resolution higher than the bit width;
and applying an adaptive right shift based on the leading bit count to signed binary integers of an output of a butterfly of the second radix kernel operation which is mapped to the bit width to provide a second output of the second stage of the FFT;
wherein the adaptive left shift and adaptive right shift determines a resolution of the FFT.
Mathur et al. (US 20030018677 A1, hereinafter “Mathur”) discloses dynamic range normalization on a set of inputs to increase the dynamic range of the inputs, wherein the increase of dynamic range is deleting LSBs and sign extending the MSBs (Fig. 5; [0040]). Mathur further decreases the dynamic range of the set of outputs, such that the outputs are stored at a higher resolution (Fig. 6; [0052]). Mathur does not suggest adjusting the dynamic range such that the calculation is performed at higher resolution inputs. Therefore, Mathur does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Mannering et al. (US 6137839 A, hereinafter “Mannering”) discloses preserving precision by variably downscaling inputs (right shifting) when overflow is possible during calculation (col 40 lines 36-56). Mannering does not suggest the variable scaling is performed to increase resolution during calculation. Therefore, Mannering does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Banister et al. (US 20100250636 A1, hereinafter “Bannister”) discloses shifting the input based on maximum absolute value over all inputs ([0032]). Bannister disclose the shifting as a right shift, but may be a left shift as needed such that the values are within a predetermined range ([0032]). Bannister does not suggest shifting the output nor performing computation on higher resolution values. Therefore, Bannister does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Dobart et al. (US 20110270901 A1, hereinafter “Dobart”) discloses separating an input signal to its most significant bits and least significant bits and combining results after FFT computation to avoid rounding errors (Fig. 2; [0019]). Dobart determines whether to separate the signal based on the magnitude of the input signal ([0019]). Dobart does not suggest shifting based on the leading bits of the data nor the process being performed for each stage of an FFT computation. Therefore, Dobart does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Yu-Heng et al. (FIXED-POINT FIXED-PRECISION DYNAMIC KERNEL FUNCTION FFT PROCESSOR FOR WIDEBAND SIGNAL DETECTION, hereinafter “Yu-Heng” ) discloses variable truncation of the output if leading MSBs are the same value in order to recover weak frequencies (Section II.C). Yu-Heng does not suggest truncation of the inputs such that computations are done in higher resolution. Therefore, Yu-Heng does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHAT N LE whose telephone number is (571)272-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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 T 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.
/P.N.L./
Phat LeExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571) 272-0546
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182