Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/021,245

SIGNAL PROCESSING DEVICE, SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Feb 14, 2023
Examiner
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
Art Unit
2857
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
254 granted / 466 resolved
-13.5% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
538
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§103
43.7%
+3.7% vs TC avg
§102
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 466 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . The objection and rejections from the Office Action of 8/20/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below. 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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to and abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for evaluating whether a signal experiences a sudden change and/or the signal reliability. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no underlying application as the signal can be any signal from any technological context. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited computer elements amount to the recitation of a general-purpose computer for performing the algorithm (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). Mapping the local scores and calculating the score by integrating values amounts to further steps in the mathematical algorithm (i.e., creating a graph and then integrating values from it). Allowable Subject Matter The instant Claims are rejected under 35 USC 101. However, were those rejections to be overcome, the following would be an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 is allowed because the closest prior art, Sugiyama et al. (US 20160217803 A1) and Hadaschik et al. (US 20210266747 A1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a signal processing device comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor performing operations to: for each of the determination target signal and the one or more overlap signals, calculate a local score indicative of an appearance frequency of the phase gradient at each time within the frame; map the local scores to an absolute time axis and calculate a score by integrating values at identical absolute times across the determination target signal and the one or more overlap signals, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Claim 8 is allowed because the closest prior art, Sugiyama et al. (US 20160217803 A1) and Hadaschik et al. (US 20210266747 A1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a signal processing method comprising: for each of the determination target signal and the one or more overlap signals, calculating a local score indicative of an appearance frequency of the phase gradient at each time within the frame; mapping the local scores to an absolute time axis and calculate a score by integrating values at identical absolute times across the determination target signal and the one or more overlap signals, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Claim 15 is allowed because the closest prior art, Sugiyama et al. (US 20160217803 A1) and Hadaschik et al. (US 20210266747 A1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute operations comprising: for each of the determination target signal and the one or more overlap signals, calculating a local score indicative of an appearance frequency of the phase gradient at each time within the frame; mapping the local scores to an absolute time axis and calculate a score by integrating values at identical absolute times across the determination target signal and the one or more overlap signals, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the Applicant. The dependent claims are allowed based on their dependence from the independent claims. Response to Arguments Applicant argues: PNG media_image1.png 177 864 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner’s Response: The corresponding objection is hereby withdrawn. Applicant argues: PNG media_image2.png 81 855 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 279 856 media_image3.png Greyscale Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant Claims are not rejected for being directed to a “mathematical idea.” The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for evaluating whether a signal experiences a sudden change and/or the signal reliability, as applied to any signal from any technological context. The referred-to steps are steps of the mathematical algorithm. Applicant argues: PNG media_image4.png 135 861 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 485 859 media_image5.png Greyscale Examiner’s Response: The Examiner agrees. The corresponding rejections are hereby withdrawn. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20160210987 A1 – SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS, SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING PROGRAM US 20160019913 A1 – SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS, SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING PROGRAM US 20160019914 A1 – SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS, SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING PROGRAM US 20160019914 A1 – SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS, SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING PROGRAM US 20110123046 A1 – SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS, SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM THEREFOR US 5774089 A – Method To Resolve Ambiguities In A Phase Measurement Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST. 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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. /KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 14, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Nov 20, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601396
PREDICTIVE MODELING OF HEALTH OF A DRIVEN GEAR IN AN OPEN GEAR SET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12566218
BATTERY PACK MONITORING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566162
AUTOMATED CONTAMINANT SEPARATION IN GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12523698
Battery Management Apparatus and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12509981
Parametric Attribute of Pore Volume of Subsurface Structure from Structural Depth Map
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+32.7%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 466 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month