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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/28/2026 has been entered.
This action is responsive to the original application filed on 7/1/2022 and the Remarks and Amendments and RCE filed on 5/28/2026.
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 1-2, 5-9, 11-15, 17-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a computing system; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
select a fractional derivative value: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting a derivative value, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper or is a mathematical concept of selecting a fractional derivative value, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
determine a derivative operation based on the fractional derivative value: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of determining a derivative operation, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
apply the derivative operation to an activation function to obtain a deformable fractional filter having only three trainable parameters: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of applying a derivative operation to an activation function, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
generate a mask based on the deformable fractional filter: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of generating a mask based on a filter, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
convolve the mask with input data: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of convolving a mask with input data, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039 and 0042] of the originally filed specification.
wherein to apply the derivative operation to the swish activation function, … to determine an outer product of two one-dimensional (1D) filters: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of applying a derivative to a swish function to determine an outer product, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039 and 0042] of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional limitations which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements consist of “a network controller; a processor coupled to the network controller; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to”, “the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to”, and “wherein the deformable fractional filter is to be a two-dimensional (2D) filter”.
The additional elements of “a network controller; a processor coupled to the network controller; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to” and “the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to” amount to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “wherein the deformable fractional filter is to be a two-dimensional (2D) filter” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Thus, even when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “a network controller; a processor coupled to the network controller; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to” and “the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to” amount to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “wherein the deformable fractional filter is to be a two-dimensional (2D) filter” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
approximate a gamma function: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of approximating a gamma function, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein to select the fractional derivative value, the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to recursively compute the fractional derivative value: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of recursively computing a fractional derivative value, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to select a size of the mask based on computational resource availability: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting a mask size based on resource availability, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 7-9 and 11-12
Claims 7-9 and 11-12 recite at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium (step 1: a manufacture) using a system to perform the steps of claims 1-3 and 5-6, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply it”) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and are thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-6, respectively.
Claims 13-15 and 17-18
Claims 13-15 and 17-18 recite an apparatus (step 1: a machine) using one or more substrates and hardware to perform the steps of claims 1-3 and 5-6, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply it”) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and are thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-6, respectively.
Claim 19
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The additional element of “wherein the logic coupled to the one or more substrates includes transistor channel regions that are positioned within the one or more substrates” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas of the claim and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites a method (step 1: a process) to perform the steps of claim 1 without any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea by itself, and is thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 21
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
approximate a gamma function: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of approximating a gamma function, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 22
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
wherein the activation function is to be a swish function: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of computing a swish function, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 24
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
recursively computing the fractional derivative value: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mathematical concept of recursively computing a fractional derivative value, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 25
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
selecting a size of the mask based on computational resource availability: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of selecting a mask size based on resource availability, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed on 5/28/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 abstract idea without more rejection of the pending claims have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 6 of the remarks, filed on 5/28/2026, Applicant argues “In response, to advance prosecution without conceding to the rejections, the independent claims have been amended to more clearly reflect the improvement in computer functionality described in the specification. Support for these amendments may be found at least in paragraph 0025 of the specification. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to require a deformable fractional filter having only three trainable parameters. Each of the other pending claims includes a corresponding limitation”. Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s analysis.
Although Applicant identifies alleged improvements to computer functionality, it appears that the alleged improvements appear to be reflected in only the identified abstract ideas of the claims. Abstract ideas or judicial exceptions alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Specifically, it appears that Applicant argues that the improvement is reflected in the amended limitation “apply the derivative operation to a swish activation function to obtain a deformable fractional filter having only three trainable parameters” of the independent claims. This limitation, as discussed in the 35 USC § 101 rejection above, encompasses the mathematical concept of applying a derivative operation to an activation function, which is performed through mathematical computation as evidenced by equations 1-4 and paragraphs [0032-0039] of the originally filed specification. Applicant has failed to provide any evidence or arguments as to why this limitation of the independent claims is not directed towards a mathematical concept. Applicant has further failed to identify any additional elements in the claim language beyond the abstract ideas that reflect a technical improvement, integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive, and the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brent Hoover whose telephone number is (303)297-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 MST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached on 571-270-3169. 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.
/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights