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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 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.
Regarding claim 18, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites the limitations beginning from “establishing a sparse primary grid over an operation space of the signal receiver, the sparse primary grid including at least one primary cell in which at least one data vector of the plurality of data vectors has been received” to the end of the claim. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional element of “receiving, via a signal receiver, a plurality of data vectors representing a plurality of signals.” However, this is recited at a high level of generality to collect the data for the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional element(s) are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to more the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 10 are similarly rejected by analogy to claim 18. Note that the “computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums,” “at least one signal receiver,” “a data storage,” and “at least one processor coupled to the data storage” are components of a generic computer invoked for their conventional computer functionalities. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). They are not sufficient to make the claims eligible.
Dependent claims 3-9, 12-17 and 19 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea., as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the claims into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Notes
Claims 1, 10, and 18 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 1 (as the representative): “wherein establishing the sparse secondary grid includes establishing the sparse secondary grid having first, second, and third orthogonal secondary axes, the first and second secondary axes corresponding, respectively, to the first and second parameters of the plurality of data vectors, and the third secondary axis corresponding to a third parameter of the plurality of data vectors,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of: “determining that the first smart object contains two or more distributions of data vectors; determining a divergence between the two or more distributions of data vectors; and based on the divergence exceeding a predetermined threshold, splitting the first smart object into multiple smart objects, each smart object of the multiple smart objects being associated with one of the two or more distributions,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101, Applicant argued: In the Office Action, the Office characterizes the claimed operations (sparse grids, threshold-triggered smart objects, and splitting by divergence) as mere mathematical concepts or mental steps, but that framing ignores the claim’s concrete, technology-specific implementation tied to a signal receiver and processors performing real-time signal sorting with defined axes bound to signal parameters. The claims are not directed to “math” in the abstract; they recite a particular data-structuring and resource-management pipeline for high-rate signal environments that cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind and is aimed at improving system processing efficiency and memory use.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued data-structuring and resource-management pipeline are steps of sorting data by organizing and manipulating the input signal data through a sorting algorithm involving data grids, data vectors, and smart object. These involve assigning data to data cells, and thresholding data for further assignments to secondary data cells and/or a smart object. These are data organization steps that can be perform by a human with a pen and paper, and/or using mathematical rules such as comparing data to thresholds or ranges. The processors are invoked for its data processing power. It does not change the facts that the steps are data processing algorithm, which is an abstract idea.
Applicant argued: Further, under Step 2A Prong 2, the claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application by reciting a specific manner of managing signal data with sparse primary/secondary grids whose orthogonal axes correspond to real signal parameters, threshold-driven formation of smart objects, and automated merge/split governance; thereby focusing computation on relevant regions and reducing computational load. This is particularly notable as the Specification expressly explains the technical improvements of minimizing processing time and memory through sparse grids , threshold gating, and smart-object centric analytics in high rate domains.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued specific manner and improvement are an improvement in the abstract idea of sorting (or manipulating) the data. Note that improvement in the abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Even if the claims are distinguishable as compared to prior art techniques, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” See MPEP 2106.05(I), citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the claim recites receiving data vectors in general, and processing the data to obtain a result (associating a smart object) in more details. Although the data processing (i.e., abstract idea) is distinguishable over prior art, the claim does not meaningfully limit the claim to a specific or practical application of the abstract idea. For example, the claim merely recites receiving data vector for the signals and processing the data based on the abstract idea. It does not specify what the signal is, how and by what instruments the signal is generated or obtained, and how the smart object is used in a practical manner. It does not even specify what the smart object represents in the real world such that the association of the smart object may have a practical and real-world application. Therefore, the claim does not pass the test of 2A-Prong two.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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 Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857