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 .
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 system, which is a statutory category of invention (Machine).
At Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claims are directed towards an abstract idea. The claim language has been reproduced below:
A system comprising: at least one hardware processor;
and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code, the program code executable by the at least one hardware processor to: receive a sequence comprising n bits,
apply a transformation to said sequence to obtain a time-frequency signal representation of said sequence (mathematical calculation),
analyze said signal to measure one or more intensity values of said transformed sequence (mathematical relationship/calculation),
and determine the presence of a periodic segment within said sequence when one of said intensity values deviates from a specified value range (mathematical relationship/calculation).
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 hardware processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are merely recited at a high level of generality and are no more than reciting the equivalent of “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation “receive a sequence” is merely an insignificant extra-solution 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 “receive a sequence” is recognized by the courts as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Furthermore, the hardware processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. 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 2, it is directed to the mathematical concept and/or mental process of “said sequence is generated by a random number generator” and “correcting the sequence to minimize the presence of a periodic segment”. The limitation “said sequence is generated by a random number generator” is a mathematical relationship because the claimed system does not comprise a random number generator, rather the sequence may be output data of an external random number generator stored in a storage device, then transmitted to the claimed system. Applicant may consider amending the claim to include the RNG structure shown in Fig. 9 and positively recite the RNG structure as a component of the system.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim recites additional element “instruction for”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the instruction 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, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 3-9, the claims merely recite functions for transform, analyzing the signal, and correcting periodic segments 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 claims 10-18, the claims are directed to a method that would be practiced by the system of claims 1-9, respectively. All steps performed by the method of claims 10-18 are executed by the system in claims 1-9 as configured. The analysis of claims 1-9 applies equally to claims 10-18.
Regarding claims 19-20, the claims are directed to a computer program product that would be practiced by the system of claims 1-2, respectively. All steps performed by the method of claims 19-20 are executed by the system in claims 1-2 as configured. The analysis of claims 1-2 applies equally to claims 19-20.
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, 10, 19, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including: analyze said signal to measure one or more intensity values of said transformed sequence, and determine the presence of a periodic segment within said sequence when one of said intensity values deviates from a specified value range.
Yutao et al. (A New Testing Method of Randomness for True Random Sequences, hereinafter “Yutao(I)”) discloses Applying Kolmogorov complexity and wavelet transform to test for randomness of a signal (abstract). Yutao(I) further discloses analyzing the signals for statistical data (Section V). Yutao(I) does not suggest comparing signal density to a specified value range. Therefore, Yutao(I) does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Yutao et al. (Application of Wavelet Analysis in Removing Deviation and Correlation from True Random Sequences, hereinafter “Yutao(II)”) discloses [removing deviation and correlation from wavelet transformed signals (abstract). Yutao(II) further discloses true random sequences innately have some deviation and correlation (Section I). Yutao(II) does not suggest determining the presence of a periodic segment when the signal deviates from a specified value range, as the presence is assumed. Therefore, Yutao(II) does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Alfaouri (Digital Analysis of Signal Intensities, hereinafter “Alfaouri”) discloses analyzing time-frequency characteristics of non-stationary signals after applying the Fourier transform of the intensity of the signal (abstract). Alfaouri does not suggest determining the presence of a period segment within the signal. Therefore, Alfaouri does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Hars (US 20030200239 A1, hereinafter “Hars”) discloses determining the number of gap frequencies are outside of a predetermined range and notifying when the number passes a threshold (Fig. 3). Hars does not suggest analyzing the intensity values of transformed signals. Therefore, Hars does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including the limitations identified above.
Yasuda et al. (US 20080046790 A1, hereinafter “Yasuda”, provided in IDS filed 7/18/2023) discloses analyzing the output of a random number generator by counting the number of repetitions of bit values ([0012]). Yasuda does not suggest analyzing the intensity values of a transformed signal. Therefore, Yasuda 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
Prosecution Insights