The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 8 October 2026 . THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL . In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant’s election without traverse of the instant application in the reply filed on 8 October 2026 is acknowledged. Status of Claims Claims 1-3 are pending. Claims 4-13 are cancelled. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. There is no art rejection for claims 1- 3 . 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. Judicial Exception Claims 1-3 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. Regarding claims 1-3, (Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1, the claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories. 2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites “… initializing a variable signal named iteration result; providing an iterative procedure that repeats an aliasing-free polynomial (AFP) operation updating said iteration result, said AFP operation comprising: applying a plurality of first linear translation-invariant (LTI) operations on said plurality of input signals to produce a plurality of convolved inputs; applying a plurality of second LTI operations on said iteration result to produce a plurality of convolved iteration results; applying a pointwise polynomial (PWP) operation on a second collection of signals to produce a Wiener model result (WMR), said second collection of signals comprising said plurality of convolved inputs and said plurality of convolved iteration results; applying a third LTI operation on said WMR to produce a convolved WMR; providing a halting mechanism that makes a Yes versus No decision; providing an updating mechanism that replaces values of said iteration result by values of said convolved WMR upon said halting mechanism making a No decision; whereby said PWP operation is aliasing-free, and said iterative procedure stops repeating said AFP operation upon said halting mechanism making a Yes decision; … whereby said first collection of signals substantially satisfying a prescribed polynomial equation … ” (math concept), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than possibly using generic computer for implementation, the steps of “initializing a variable … ”, “… repeating an aliasing -free polynomial (AFP) operation …”, “applying .. LTI / PWP …”, “… to produce a WMR …”, “providing halting / updating mechanism …”, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mathematical relationships and algorithms. Mathematical relationship and algorithms have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas, e.g. , see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) A. Mathematical Relationships, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “ receiving said plurality of input signals; … exporting said iteration result as said output signal upon said halting mechanism making a Yes decision ”, which are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output ( MPEP.2106.05(g)) . The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “ receiving said plurality of input signals; … exporting said iteration result as said output signal upon said halting mechanism making a Yes decision ” is insignificant extra solution activity ( MPEP 2106.05(g )) and/or WURC (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The claim is not patent eligible. (Dependent claims) Claims 2-3 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-3 recite the same abstract ideas. With regards to claim 2 , the claim recites further limitation of “wherein said halting mechanism makes a Yes decision upon said AFP operation having been repeated for a prescribed number of times ”, which is math concept / calculation algorithm. Except possibly using generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. With regards to claim 3 , the claim recites further limitation of “wherein said halting mechanism makes a Yes decision upon said convolved WMR is substantially the same as said iteration result ”, which is math concept / calculation algorithm. Except possibly using generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Analysis Claims 1-3 include allowable subject matter since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 1-3 . The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 8 October 2025, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record. None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claim 1, specifically, the process of AFP operation by iteratively applying LTI / PWP to produce WMR with halting / updating mechanism as claimed . Regarding the dependent claims, which include all the limitations of the independent claims, are also allowed. The followings are references close to the invention claimed: Ozean et al., US-PGPUB NO.20190333199A1 [hereafter Ozean] teaches NN for shift-invariant image processing. However O z ean does not teach the specific claimed process of AFP operation by iteratively applying LTI / PWP to produce WMR with halting / updating mechanism. Bees et al., US-PGPUB NO.20240020968A1 [hereafter Bees] teaches space shift-invariant neural network using Weiner filter. However Bees does not teach claimed process of AFP operation by iteratively applying LTI / PWP to produce WMR with halting / updating mechanism. Wei et al., US-PATENT NO.8532964B2 [hereafter Wei] teaches using Weiner filter to improve pattern defined by photo resistance. However Wei does not teach the specific claimed process of AFP operation by iteratively applying LTI / PWP to produce WMR with halting / updating mechanism. Larras., et al., “Alias-free generative adversarial networks”, 35 th NeuroIPS 2021 [Larras] shows anti-aliasing operation for generative adversarial networks. However Larras not teach the specific claimed process of AFP operation by iteratively applying LTI / PWP to produce WMR with halting / updating mechanism. Parker, et al., “Reducing the aliasing of nonlinear waveshaping using continuous-time convolution”, Proc. Of the 19 th International conference on digital audio effects (DAFx-16), Brno, Czech Republic, September 5-9, 2016 [hereafter Parker] shows nonlinear waveshaping to reduce aliasing effect. However Parker does not teach the specific claimed process of AFP operation by iteratively applying LTI / PWP to produce WMR with halting / updating mechanism. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TSU-CHANG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128