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 Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/01/2026 are entered. Claims 1, 4-12, and 15-23 are pending in this application of which claims 1, 12, and 23 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments, filed on 07/01/2026 have been fully considered and the examiners response is as follows:
Applicant’s arguments, Page 07-10, regarding 35 U.S.C 101 rejections are considered but are not persuasive since the amendments were previously presented in dependent claims which were also rejected under 35 USC 101. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejections are modified as seen below.
Applicant’s arguments, Page 11-13, regarding 35 U.S.C 103 rejections are considered and found persuasive. A statement for the reasons for indication of allowability is provided 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, 4-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites “A method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mathematical concepts.
sampling the signal to abstract it as an ordered set of a sequence of literals that correspond to a sequence of time stamps in a first time period;This shows defining a mathematical relationship of the signal literals to time.iteratively determining whether a sub-sequence of literals repeats in a first window of time within the first time period, wherein after every iteration, the first window of time is lengthened;This shows a mathematical calculation of literals at different times.determining a frequency of the periodic coverage artifact based on a length of time between repeating sub-sequences of literals;
This shows a mathematical calculation of division.
uniformly resampling the signal in a second window of time to determine a temporary reference voltage that is a mean of all samples in the second window of time;This shows a mathematical calculation of resampling.determining a list of reference values for a set of time periods, wherein a reference value of the list of reference values is a mean of each sample in a respective time period, wherein each time period of the set of time periods is defined by consecutive positive level crossings of the temporary reference voltage; andThis shows a calculation of findings means and establishing a mathematical relationship.
determining a Direct Current (DC) reference based on a median of the list of reference values; and
This shows a mathematical calculation of taking a median of a list.
performing a signal processing operation based on determining the frequency and the DC reference, wherein the signal processing operation includes mitigating signal noise when determining whether the sub-sequence of literals repeats by employing a tolerance parameter that defines a maximum number of literals that are ignored when determining whether the sub- sequence of literals repeats.This shows a mathematical calculation of comparing ignored literals against a maximum, performed on the sequence of literals as part of the determining of the second limitation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the exception.
performing a signal processing operation based on determining the frequency and the DC reference, wherein the signal processing operation includes mitigating signal noise when determining whether the sub-sequence of literals repeats by employing a tolerance parameter that defines a maximum number of literals that are ignored when determining whether the sub- sequence of literals repeats.This limitation “performing a signal processing operation…” merely recites a desired result or outcome without describing the particular means for achieving it, which fall under “apply it” under MPEP 2106.05(f). No particular signal processing operation is recited, and the recited mitigating of signal noise is performed on the sequence of literals when determining whether the sub sequence of literals repeats, which is part of the mathematical calculation itself rather than a particular means of applying the determined frequency and DC reference.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to mathematical concepts, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein a number of literals in the repeating sub- sequences of literals is an even number.
Claim 4 merely defines further the list of literals. This does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein for each literal in the repeating sub- sequences of literals, a preceding literal and a succeeding literal are immediate neighbors of the literal.
Claim 5 merely defines the pattern observed. This does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to identifying the repeating sub-sequence of literals, shifting the first window of time to a second time period.
Claim 6 merely defines the mathematical window of measure. This does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7:
The method of claim 6, wherein there are respective DC references and frequencies of periodic coverage artifacts for each of the first time period and the second time period.
This merely defines mathematical variables. This does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a list of starting timestamps and a list of ending timestamps corresponding to respective starting points and ending points of each occurrence of the repeating sub-sequences of literals.
This merely defines taking mathematical time stamps and points based on the literals. This does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second window of time comprises at least two occurrences of the repeating sub-sequences of literals.
This merely defines the mathematical pattern more. This does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a peak-to-peak value of a time period based on a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value in the time period.
This merely defines taking a mathematical measurement. This does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 11:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a duty cycle based on a first-time interval between a positive level crossing and a negative level crossing divided by a time period associated with the first-time interval.
This merely defines a mathematical relationship and measurement. This does not resolve the issues from the claim it depends upon and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 12 and 15-22:
Claims 12 and 15-22 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 4-11. They are substantially similar except they use a “memory” and a “processor” which are generic computer components. MPEP 2106.05 (b). The dependent claims just define in more detail the mathematical concepts and do not remedy the issues from the independent claim.
Regarding Claim 23:
Claim 23 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons as claims 1. They are substantially similar except they use a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “memory”, and a “processor” which are generic computer components. MPEP 2106.05 (b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-12, and 15-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of LIN et al. “Experiencing SAX: a novel symbolic representation of time series” (2007) [herein “LIN”], in view of ELFEKY et al. “STAGGER: Periodicity Mining of Data Streams Using Expanding Sliding Windows” (2006) [herein “ELFEKY”], in view of SMITH et al. “The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing” (1997) [herein “SMITH”], in view of “Op-amp Comparator” (2015) [herein “WAYBACK MACHINE”], in view of MARECEK et al. “Prealgebra 2e” [herein “MARECEK”] (2020), and in view of NICOLAE et al. “On string matching with k mismatches” [herein “NICOLAE”] (2013), instant independent claims 1, 12, and 23, would not have been anticipated or obvious by one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
LIN teaches SAX for high level representations for data mining wavelets, eigenwaves, and piece wise functions, etc.
ELFEKY teaches mining data with expanding sliding windows.
SMITH teaches digital signal processing to reduce noise and interference.
WAYBACK MACHINE teaches voltage crossings.
MARACEK teaches taking a median and taking averages.
NICOLAE teaches string mismatches and other common pattern matching problems.
For claim 1, none of the prior art on record, either or alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “determining a Direct Current (DC) reference based on a median of the list of reference values; and performing a signal processing operation based on determining the frequency and the DC reference, wherein the signal processing operation includes mitigating signal noise when determining whether the sub-sequence of literals repeats by employing a tolerance parameter that defines a maximum number of literals that are ignored when determining whether the sub- sequence of literals repeats.”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 4-11 would be allowable for depending from claim 1 if the independent claim was rewritten or amened to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 12, none of the prior art on record, either or alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “determining a Direct Current (DC) reference based on a median of the list of reference values; and performing a signal processing operation based on determining the frequency and the DC reference, wherein the signal processing operation includes mitigating signal noise when determining whether the sub-sequence of literals repeats by employing a tolerance parameter that defines a maximum number of literals that are ignored when determining whether the sub-sequence of literals repeats.”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Dependents 15-22 would be allowable for depending from claim 12 if the independent claim was rewritten or amened to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this office action.
For claim 23, none of the prior art on record, either or alone or in combination, teaches the limitations “determining a Direct Current (DC) reference based on a median of the list of reference values; and performing a signal processing operation based on determining the frequency and the DC reference, wherein the signal processing operation includes mitigating signal noise when determining whether the sub-sequence of literals repeats by employing a tolerance parameter that defines a maximum number of literals that are ignored when determining whether the sub- sequence of literals repeats.”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11544435B1 teaches relates to an analog mixed-signal (AMS) design verification system.
US7873130B2 teaches frequency comparator utilizing enveloping-event detection via symbolic dynamics of fixed or modulated waveforms.
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 NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, REHANA PERVEEN can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights