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 .
Status of the claims
The argument received on June 15, 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19-20 are amended. Claims 5, 11, 17 are cancelled. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-10,12-16, 18-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 15, 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the rejection below relies on previously cited prior art, Applicant’s arguments are addressed as follows.
On page 15 of the Office Action, Applicant assets that “[A]pplicant submits that amended claims 1, 7, and 13 integrate a judicial exception in terms of an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field" (MPEP QS 2106.04(d)(1)) i.e., heterogeneous spectral sensing limitations, including (a) unequal band counts between hyperspectral and multispectral sensors, (b) amplitude variation due to sensor physics, (c) sensor-specific noise sensitivity. Applicant asserts that sensitivity-guided transformation and global optimization compensate for these sensor-level mismatches and improves cross-sensor material classification and segmentation accuracy. This constitutes an improvement to spectral data processing technology itself, not merely a different way of performing a calculation. The amended claim limitation on the piece-wise angular distance based method is not an abstract mathematical formulation, but, rather, defines a specific signal-domain transformation model for spectral measurements, resulting in a technological improvement in spectrum matching for hyperspectral and multispectral data.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to obtain an optimal transformation cost. Therefore, the claims have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematical calculations and mental processes. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 7 and 13. Therefore, the independent claims 1, 7, and 10 are ineligible. Further, Examiner respectfully note that MPEP § 2145(VI) discusses arguments about limitations that are not claimed. MPEP § 2145(VI) states that “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sensor(s)) are not recited in the rejected claim with sufficiently definite structure or acts. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A processor implemented of spectrum matching for hyperspectral and multispectral data method comprising:
receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a target spectrum of a target object for performing an optimal spectrum matching with a reference spectrum, wherein the target spectrum comprises a first set of primitives and the reference spectrum comprises a second set of primitives represented in a two-dimensional space, wherein a x-axis and a y-axis in the two-dimensional space pertains to a wavelength and a reflectance respectively, wherein the target spectrum is received as a single spectrum or as a collection of spectra, in an image format or a non-image format wherein the collection of spectra of representative materials including samples from a vegetation, impervious surfaces, and a soil selected, and wherein the set of primitives of the target spectrum and the reference spectrum are curves or a set of points;
transforming, via the one or more hardware processors, each primitive in the first set of primitives of the target spectrum to at least one primitive in the second set of primitives of the reference spectrum using at least one of a first transformation method, a second transformation method and a third transformation method to obtain a set of transformations, wherein the transformation methods are selected based on a sensitivity, a measure of changes in a distance per unit perturbations in an original spectrum, wherein the original spectrum is added with a white noise, to measure a match between the original spectrum and a changed spectra, wherein an increase in the distance is indicated, in accordance with disturbances which are added in the original spectrum, and the distance is divided by total perturbations added, wherein each transformation in the set of transformations incurs a transformation cost,
wherein the first transformation method corresponds to an edit distance based method, based on a distance measured between the first set of primitives and the second set of primitives,
wherein the second transformation method corresponds to a Hungarian based method, based on x and y dimension distance measure between the first set of primitives and the second set of primitives,
wherein the third transformation method corresponds to a piece-wise angular distance based method, based on angular difference and length difference between the first set of primitives and the second set of primitives,
wherein the piece-wise angular distance based method comprises:
calculating an angular difference and a length difference between corresponding arcs of the target spectrum and the reference spectrum to generate an arc score, wherein the target spectrum and the reference spectrum are represented by two dimensions, the wavelength in micro meter and the reflectance in percentage, and spectral signatures for a construction concrete and a bare brick red is considered and represented as arc of points {a0 to an} and {b0 to bn}, wherein the third transformation of point a0 to corresponding point on a second arc point in {b0 to bn} incurs the transformation cost, and the transformation cost of translation in x and y direction is given as ∆x and ∆y, wherein for the piece-wise angular distance based method, ∆θ={θ1 and θ2}, and ∆L= len(arc(an, an+1)-len(arc (bn, bn+1) is calculated and then added, that is ∆θ +∆L, and a total distance is sum of ∆θ +∆L for each corresponding arc from two spectra;
repeating the calculation for every corresponding arc in the target spectrum and the reference spectrum; and
adding the arc score corresponding to all arcs to obtain a final matching score and
wherein the edit distance based method, the Hungarian based method, the piece-wise angular distance based method are computed for the vegetation, the impervious surfaces, and the soil;
obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, a set of optimal transformations of the first set of primitives to the second set of primitives by optimizing the set of transformations;
obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, a set of global transformation costs by taking the sum of transformation cost corresponding to each optimal transformation of the set of optimal transformations; and
obtaining, via the one or more hardware processors, an optimal transformation cost by optimizing the set of global transformation costs using an optimization technique, wherein the optimal transformation cost represents the optimal spectrum matching of the target spectrum with the reference spectrum.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the limitations of “spectrum matching for hyperspectral and multispectral data (paras. [0028], [0031]),” “a x-axis and a y-axis in the two-dimensional space pertains to a wavelength and a reflectance respectively, wherein the target spectrum is received as a single spectrum or as a collection of spectra, in an image format or a non-image format, wherein the collection of spectra of representative materials including samples from a vegetation, impervious surfaces, and a soil selected, and wherein the set of primitives of the target spectrum and the reference spectrum are curves or a set of points (paras. [029], [035] of instant application) ” and “additional limitation of “transforming, each primitive in the first set of primitives of the target spectrum to at least one primitive in the second set of primitives of the reference spectrum using at least one of a first transformation method, a second transformation method and a third transformation method to obtain a set of transformations, wherein each transformation in the set of transformations incurs a transformation cos, wherein the transformation methods are selected based on a sensitivity, a measure of changes in a distance per unit perturbations in an original spectrum, wherein the original spectrum is added with a white noise, to measure a match between the original spectrum and a changed spectra, wherein an increase in the distance is indicated, in accordance with disturbances which are added in the original spectrum, and the distance is divided by total perturbations added (see para. [030] and table 1 of instant application),” “wherein the first transformation method corresponds to an edit distance based method, based on a distance measured between the first set of primitives and the second set of primitives, wherein the second transformation method corresponds to a Hungarian based method, based on x and y dimension distance measure between the first set of primitives and the second set of primitives (see para. [011]), wherein the third transformation method corresponds to a piece-wise angular distance based method, based on angular difference and length difference between the first set of primitives and the second set of primitives (see para. [035]), “wherein the piece-wise angular distance based method comprises: calculating an angular difference and a length difference between corresponding arcs of the target spectrum and the reference spectrum to generate an arc score, wherein the target spectrum and the reference spectrum are represented by two dimensions, the wavelength in micro meter and the reflectance in percentage, and spectral signatures for a construction concrete and a bare brick red is considered and represented as arc of points {a0 to an} and {b0 to bn}, wherein the third transformation of point a0 to corresponding point on a second arc point in {b0 to bn} incurs the transformation cost, and the transformation cost of translation in x and y direction is given as ∆x and ∆y, wherein for the piece-wise angular distance based method, ∆θ={θ1 and θ2}, and ∆L= len(arc(an, an+1)-len(arc (bn, bn+1) is calculated and then added, that is ∆θ +∆L, and a total distance is sum of ∆θ +∆L for each corresponding arc from two spectra (see paras. [035]-[036], [042]),” “repeating the calculation for every corresponding arc in the target spectrum and the reference spectrum (see para. [035]-[0036])” and “wherein the edit distance based method, the Hungarian based method, the piece-wise angular distance based method are computed for the vegetation, the impervious surfaces, and the soil (see paras. [030]-[031]),” “obtaining a set of optimal transformations of the first set of primitives to the second set of primitives by optimizing the set of transformations (see paras. [032], [045], tables 2-4),” “obtaining a set of global transformation costs by taking the sum of transformation cost corresponding to each optimal transformation of the set of optimal transformations (see paras. [043]-[044]),” “obtaining an optimal transformation cost by optimizing the set of global transformation costs using an optimization technique, wherein the optimal transformation cost represents the optimal spectrum matching of the target spectrum with the reference spectrum (see paras. [033]-[034] and [042]-[044],” as drafted, are a mathematical calculations. Especially, the additional elements of “the collection of spectra of representative materials including samples from a vegetation, impervious surfaces, and a soil selected “ is just a description of the data receive and used for mathematical calculations (i.e. merely parts of mathematical calculation). Further, “adding the arc score corresponding to all arcs to obtain a final matching score (see para. [004], [030], [035], [044])” is mental processes (e.g. evaluation/judgement) based on mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or human mind, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 7 and 13.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a processor implemented method of spectrum matching for hyperspectral and multispectral data (preamble); receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a target spectrum of a target object for performing an optimal spectrum matching with a reference spectrum, wherein the target spectrum comprises a first set of primitives and the reference spectrum comprises a second set of primitives represented in a two-dimensional space;
In Claim 7: a system of spectrum matching for hyperspectral and multispectral data (preamble); one or more communication interfaces; one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions; receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a target spectrum of a target object for performing an optimal spectrum matching with a reference spectrum, wherein the target spectrum comprises a first set of primitives and the reference spectrum comprises a second set of primitives represented in a two-dimensional space; and
In Claim 13: one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors (preamble); receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a target spectrum of a target object for performing an optimal spectrum matching with a reference spectrum, wherein the target spectrum comprises a first set of primitives and the reference spectrum comprises a second set of primitives represented in a two-dimensional space.
The generically recited a processor, system, memory, and one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors are high level generality to perform the abstract idea addressed above (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the additional element of “a processor implemented method of spectrum matching for hyperspectral and multispectral data” and “a system of spectrum matching for hyperspectral and multispectral data” are preamble statements reciting purpose or intended use (See MPEP 2111.02)(II)). The additional element of “receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a target spectrum of a target object for performing an optimal spectrum matching with a reference spectrum, wherein the target spectrum comprises a first set of primitives and the reference spectrum comprises a second set of primitives represented in a two-dimensional space” is insignificant (data gathering) extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). This additional limitation is merely data gathering or receiving data necessary to perform the abstract idea (i.e., the mathematical calculations).
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to obtain an optimal transformation cost. Therefore, the claims have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematical and mental processes. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 7 and 13. Therefore, the independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14,
The additional element of “the target spectrum and the reference spectrum are at least one of a hyperspectral spectrum or a multispectral spectrum” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 4, lines 14-15, page 9, lines 24-25 of Yao; page 8, lines 21-41 of Lu et al. (CN 112418057 A)) or further describe the abstract idea of the target spectrum and the reference spectrum.
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15,
The additional element of “wherein the edit distance based method comprises: creating a first matrix for pairs of primitives from the target spectrum and the reference spectrum: calculating at least three distances with a mapped or a paired practical primitive on the reference spectrum starting from left to right and starting at a first primitive of the target spectrum, wherein one of insertion, deletion, and substitution operations is selected for calculating the at least three distances, and repeating the creating and the calculating steps for all paired practical primitives and sum up cost for the selected operations for each paired transformation to obtain total transformation cost” is mathematical calculations (see paras. [030]-[033]).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16,
The additional element of “wherein the Hungarian based method comprises: creating a second matrix of pairs of primitives from the target spectrum and the reference spectrum: mapping or transforming a primitive from the target spectrum to any other primitive in the reference spectrum, wherein a cost is associated for each transformation of the paired primitives, and calculating a cost of transformation for each pair of primitives, wherein the cost for a transformation for a pair is weighted x and y scalar difference” is mathematical calculations (see paras. [011], [030], [034]).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18,
The additional element of “the transformation cost corresponds to one or more of (i) translation of a primitive in x and y dimensions (ii) deletion of the primitive and (iii) insertion of the primitive” is mathematical calculations (see paras. [013], [033], [037]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20,
The additional element of “the impervious surfaces corresponds to the construction- concrete, the soil corresponds to a light yellowish brown clay, and the vegetation corresponds to a Ficus Platypoda, and wherein the edit distance based method, the Hungarian based method, the piece-wise angular distance based method are computed for the construction-concrete, the light yellowish brown clay, the Ficus Platypoda” are mathematical calculations. The additional elements is just a description of the data received and used for mathematical calculations (i.e. merely parts of mathematical calculation).
Conclusion
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 SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5618. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights