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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9-11 are amended.
Claims 5 and 8 are canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “non-overlapping first time slices having a duration Ati”, “aggregate corresponding frequency-bin values across each non-overlapping group of N1 successive first time slices to form a single thinned FFT”, “second time slices having a duration At2 = N1-Ati”, “third time slices having a duration At3 = N1-N3-Ati” and “aggregate corresponding frequency-bin values across each non-overlapping group of N3 successive second time slices to form a single compressed FFT”, Claim 2 recites “forms the thinned FFT for each group of N1 successive first time slices by one of: maximum-hold, minimum-hold, average, first-of-N, or selection rules”, in claim 6 “wherein the FFT plotter provides first display data at a first refresh rate and the spectrogram plotter provides second display data at a lower refresh rate, both generated simultaneously from respective post-FFT data streams”, in claims 4 and 11 “concurrently supplying the stored thinned FFTs to the FFT plotter and to the second detector circuit”, however applicant has not cited where support for said limitations is, and upon review examiner cannot find any recitation of the cited elements.
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, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 recite(s) “generate FFTs of the digital input data stream for successive non-overlapping first time slices having a duration Ati, wherein each FFT includes a plurality of frequency bins;”, “aggregate corresponding frequency-bin values across each non-overlapping group of N1 successive first time slices to form a single thinned FFT, thereby reducing a number of FFTs per unit time and outputting a corresponding thinned FFT data stream for successive second time slices having a duration At2 = N1-Ati;”, and “aggregate corresponding frequency-bin values across each non-overlapping group of N3 successive second time slices to form a single compressed FFT, thereby further reducing a number of FFTs per unit time” and “an FFT plotter configured to generate first display data representing an FFT plot of the input analog signal from the thinned FFT data stream; and a spectrogram plotter configured to generate second display data of a spectrogram of the input analog signal from the compressed FFT data stream” are considered to be directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental process see applicant’s specification, for example see Par. 59-61.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a real-time spectrum analyzer (RTSA), comprising:” and “an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert an input analog signal into a digital input data stream;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), the ASIC or FPGA comprising:”, and “a fast Fourier transform (FFT) unit implemented in hardware and configured to” are considered to be are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “a first detector circuit operating on the output of the FFTs output by the FFT unit and configured to”, and “a second detector circuit operating on the thinned FFT data stream and configured to”, “outputting a corresponding compressed FFT data stream for successive third time slices having a duration At3 = N1-N3-Ati;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a real-time spectrum analyzer (RTSA), comprising:” and “an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert an input analog signal into a digital input data stream;” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), the ASIC or FPGA comprising:” and “a fast Fourier transform (FFT) unit implemented in hardware and configured to” are considered to be are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The Examiner notes regarding “a fast Fourier transform (FFT) unit” per applicant’s specification, it can be programing or dedicated hardware, however the specification does not describe said dedicated hardware, simply describing it at a high level of generality which is not enough to be considered integrated into a practical application. The elements of “a first detector circuit operating on the output of the FFTs output by the FFT unit and configured to”, “a second detector circuit operating on the thinned FFT data stream and configured to” and “outputting a corresponding compressed FFT data stream for successive third time slices having a duration At3 = N1-N3-Ati;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claims 4, 7 and 11 are not integrated into a practical application because the elements are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment per MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi) and as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions per MPEP 2106.05(d)(see prior art of record).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 112(f) the interpretation is withdrawn. In regards to applicant’s 101 arguments on pages 5-8, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above the cited elements are considered to be are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and/or data inputting/outputting are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding applicant’s 103 arguments, the rejection is withdrawn based on the amendments, but would return with the removal of the cited new matter above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure US 20030198304 A1, System And Method For Real-time Spectrum Analysis In A Communication Device; US 20120026031 A1, Method And System For Continuous Wave Interference Suppression In Pulsed Signal Processing.
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 BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights