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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For the Alice analysis:
For Step 1, claims 1-6 all fall within a statutory category, which is a process.
Regarding claim 1, for Step 2A, Prong One, the claim recites the following abstract ideas as described in the following table:
Claim Limitation
Abstract Idea Recited
1) building sparse structural elements;
Mathematical relationship between the sparse representation and the signal
2) performing morphological filtering on a signal by using the sparse structural elements;
Mathematical calculations (filtering)
3) improving a filtering effect for a filtering result by using a multi-stage sparse algorithm or a two-stage sparse algorithm;
Mathematical calculations (filtering)
4) building dissociative structural elements and a bipolar morphological gradient;
Mathematical relationship between the dissociative structural elements and the signal
5) performing a bipolar morphological gradient extraction on the signal by using the dissociative structural elements.
Mathematical calculations (gradient extraction)
For Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim recites an additional element of “a signal”. The signal is recited at such a high level of generality it represents no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
For Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP -§ 2106.05(f). Even when considered in combination, the additional element represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claims 2-6, for Step 2A, Prong One, they all merely further limit the mathematical concepts as disclosed in the table above regarding limitations 2, 4 and 5 for claims 2, 3-4 and 5, respectively, and recite no additional elements. For Step 2A, Prong Two, even when viewed in combination, none of the elements integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical combination and the claims are directed to a judicial exception. For Step 2B, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as they all merely further limit the judicial exception. The claims are not eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections 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. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed including “improving a filtering effect for a filtering result by using a multi-stage sparse algorithm or a two-stage sparse algorithm”.
Nakashizuka et al., “Learning of structuring elements for morphological image model with a sparsity prior”, discloses the use of mathematical morphology with sparse structural elements, but does not teach or suggest improving the filtering result by running either a multi-stage or two-stage sparse algorithm.
Duan et al., “Application of mathematical morphological filter for noise reduction in photoacoustic imaging”, discloses a multiple stage morphological filter, but does not teach or suggest using that multiple stage filter to improve a previous filtering effect.
Wang et al., “Application of Mathematical Morphological Operator in Power Fault Signal Detection”, discloses the use of mathematical morphology for signal processing, but does not teach or suggest using sparse structural elements.
Marvasti et al., “A unified approach to sparse signal processing”, discloses the general state of the art of signal processing with sparse elements, but does not teach or suggest the use of mathematical morphology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Strapp whose telephone number is (571)272-9343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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 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.
/M.S./
Matthew StrappExaminer, Art Unit 2182
(571)272-9343
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights