DETAILED ACTION
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
An apparatus to identify, classify, and edit artificial spikes in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data, the apparatus comprising:
memory;
machine-readable instructions; and
processor circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions to:
identify a spike in the CGI signal data;
determine whether the spike is an artificial spike; and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike, replace a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Claim 8 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause processor circuitry to at least:
identify a spike in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data;
determine whether the spike is an artificial spike; and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike, replace a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Claim 15 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method to identify, classify, and edit artificial spikes in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data, the method comprising:
identifying, by executing machine-readable instructions with processor circuitry, a spike in the CGI signal data;
determining, by executing machine-readable instructions with the processor circuitry, whether the spike is an artificial spike; and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike, replacing, by executing machine-readable instructions with the processor circuitry, a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the apparatus, processor circuitry, and memory/non-transitory machine-readable storage medium do not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical/mental steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional software limitations. These do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (INITIAL RESULTS FROM THE VIBRATION MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR ARMY CARGO HELICOPTERS) in view of Noda (US 20160224830) and Tsuji (US 6725027).
Regarding claim 1, Keller discloses an apparatus to edit artificial spikes in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data (see page 2 last paragraph: apparatus is a personal computer; and see page 6 1st column 2nd paragraph: The PC-GBS processes the flights data and calculates a CI that is the maximum over the flight using a programmable length median filter to eliminate noise spikes, i.e. edits artificial spikes in the cruise guide indicator), the apparatus comprising
memory (see page 6 1st column 2nd paragraph: personal computer has a memory);
machine-readable instructions (see page section 2 PC-GBS software: software is machine-readable instructions, also the disclosed Windows software is also machine-readable instructions); and
processor circuitry to execute the machine-readable instructions to (see page 6 1st column 2nd paragraph: personal computer has a processing circuit):
edit artificial spikes in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data (see page 2 last paragraph: apparatus is a personal computer; and see page 6 1st column 2nd paragraph: The PC-GBS processes the flights data and calculates a CI that is the maximum over the flight using a programmable length median filter to eliminate noise spikes, i.e. edits artificial spikes in the cruise guide indicator).
Keller does not expressly disclose wherein the apparatus identifies and classifies the artificial spikes;
identify a spike in the CGI signal data;
determine whether the spike is an artificial spike; and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike, replace a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Noda discloses an apparatus identifies and classifies the false peaks, i.e. artificial spikes, in a signal (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0053: peak detection system; and see paragraphs 0026 and 0030: identifies false peaks and removes them) that includes;
identify a peak/spike in the signal data (see paragraph 0063: peak candidate extractor, i.e. identifies candidate peaks);
determine whether the peak/spike is an artificial spike (see paragraphs 0070 and 0090: determines, for each peak candidate, whether it is a false peak or true peak, and removes the false peak); and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike removing the peak from appearing in the signal data (see paragraphs 0029, 0070, and 0090: determines, for each peak candidate, whether it is a false peak or true peak, and removes the false peak from the chromatogram).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Noda, i.e. identifying and removing false/unwanted peaks from the signal data, for the advantageous benefit of accurately removing unwanted spikes/peak data in the signal data that don’t meet a specific criterion. Once modified, modifying Keller to identify and remove unwanted spikes in the CGI data, the modification meets the limitation of identify a spike in the CGI signal data.
Keller and Noda do not expressly disclose replacing a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Tsuji discloses an apparatus that detect and removes individual noise spikes (see Abstract) that includes replacing a portion of the signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited signal data (see Abstract, Fig. 4, and column 6 lines 30-42: Each spike in the multipath noise is thereby replaced with the immediately preceding demodulated signal value, so that the noise spikes are removed individually, claimed transient corresponds to the tail end of the peak).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Tsuji, i.e. replacing the removed peak data with edited signal data, for the advantageous benefit of reconstructing a more accurate signal reading. Once modified, replacing removed peaks in the CGI data of Keller with edited signal data, the modification teaches replacing a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Regarding claim 4, Keller and Noda do not expressly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to: determine a start time associated with the artificial spike; determine an end time associated with the transient response; remove a portion of the CGI signal data extending from the start time to the end time; and replace the removed portion of the CGI signal data with edited CGI signal data corresponding to a last valid CGI point of the CGI signal data.
Tsuji discloses wherein the processor circuitry determines a start time associated with the artificial spike; determine an end time associated with the transient response (see Fig. 4 and column 4 lines 13-33: a gate pulse generator 6f that generates a gate pulse of a predetermined duration or width on the time axis when noise is detected, the pulse represents a start time and end time of each artificial noise spike as indicated on the time axis); remove a portion of the CGI signal data extending from the start time to the end time; and replace the removed portion of the CGI signal data with edited CGI signal data corresponding to a last valid CGI point of the CGI signal data (see Abstract, Fig. 4, and column 6 lines 30-42: Each spike in the multipath noise is thereby replaced with the immediately preceding demodulated signal value, so that the noise spikes are removed individually).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Tsuji, i.e. replacing the removed peak data with edited signal data, for the advantageous benefit of reconstructing a more accurate signal reading. Once modified, replacing removed peaks in the CGI data of Keller with edited signal data, the modification teaches performed the claimed process on the CGI data of Keller.
Regarding claim 8, Keller discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause processor circuitry to at least (see page section 2 PC-GBS software till last paragraph: discloses a personal computer, computers have memory, discloses PC-GBS software/machine-readable instructions, also the disclosed Windows software is also machine-readable instructions):
edit artificial spikes in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data (see page 2 last paragraph: apparatus is a personal computer; and see page 6 1st column 2nd paragraph: The PC-GBS processes the flights data and calculates a CI that is the maximum over the flight using a programmable length median filter to eliminate noise spikes, i.e. edits artificial spikes in the cruise guide indicator).
Keller does not expressly disclose identifying a spike in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data;
determining whether the spike is an artificial spike; and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike, replace a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Noda discloses an apparatus identifies and classifies the false peaks, i.e. artificial spikes, in a signal (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0053: peak detection system; and see paragraphs 0026 and 0030: identifies false peaks and removes them; see also paragraph 0056: software program/instruction) that includes;
identifying a spike in signal data (see paragraph 0063: peak candidate extractor, i.e. identifies candidate peaks);
determining whether the peak/spike is an artificial spike (see paragraphs 0070 and 0090: determines, for each peak candidate, whether it is a false peak or true peak, and removes the false peak); and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike removing the peak from appearing in the signal data (see paragraphs 0029, 0070, and 0090: determines, for each peak candidate, whether it is a false peak or true peak, and removes the false peak from the chromatogram).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Noda, i.e. identifying and removing false/unwanted peaks from the signal data, for the advantageous benefit of accurately removing unwanted spikes/peak data in the signal data that don’t meet a specific criterion. Once modified, modifying Keller to identify and remove unwanted spikes in the CGI data, the modification meets the limitation of identify a spike in the CGI signal data.
Keller and Noda do not expressly disclose replacing a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Tsuji discloses an apparatus that detect and removes individual noise spikes (see Abstract) that includes replacing a portion of the signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited signal data (see Abstract, Fig. 4, and column 6 lines 30-42: Each spike in the multipath noise is thereby replaced with the immediately preceding demodulated signal value, so that the noise spikes are removed individually, claimed transient corresponds to the tail end of the peak).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Tsuji, i.e. replacing the removed peak data with edited signal data, for the advantageous benefit of reconstructing a more accurate signal reading. Once modified, replacing removed peaks in the CGI data of Keller with edited signal data, the modification teaches replacing a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Regarding claim 11, Keller and Noda do not expressly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor circuitry to: determine a start time associated with the artificial spike; determine an end time associated with the transient response; remove a portion of the CGI signal data extending from the start time to the end time; and replace the removed portion of the CGI signal data with edited CGI signal data corresponding to a last valid CGI point of the CGI signal data.
Tsuji discloses circuitry that is configured to determine a start time associated with the artificial spike; determine an end time associated with the transient response (see Fig. 4 and column 4 lines 13-33: a gate pulse generator 6f that generates a gate pulse of a predetermined duration or width on the time axis when noise is detected, the pulse represents a start time and end time of each artificial noise spike as indicated on the time axis); remove a portion of the CGI signal data extending from the start time to the end time; and replace the removed portion of the CGI signal data with edited CGI signal data corresponding to a last valid CGI point of the CGI signal data (see Abstract, Fig. 4, and column 6 lines 30-42: Each spike in the multipath noise is thereby replaced with the immediately preceding demodulated signal value, so that the noise spikes are removed individually).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Tsuji, i.e. replacing the removed peak data with edited signal data, for the advantageous benefit of reconstructing a more accurate signal reading. Once modified, replacing removed peaks in the CGI data of Keller with edited signal data, the modification teaches performed the claimed process on the CGI data of Keller.
Regarding claim 15, Keller discloses a method to edit artificial spikes in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data (see page 6 1st column 2nd paragraph: The PC-GBS processes the flights data and calculates a CI that is the maximum over the flight using a programmable length median filter to eliminate noise spikes, i.e. edits artificial spikes in the cruise guide indicator), the method comprising:
editing, by executing machine-readable instructions with the processor circuitry, artificial spikes in cruise guide indicator (CGI) signal data (see page 2 last paragraph: apparatus is a personal computer; and see page 6 1st column 2nd paragraph: The PC-GBS processes the flights data and calculates a CI that is the maximum over the flight using a programmable length median filter to eliminate noise spikes, i.e. edits artificial spikes in the cruise guide indicator).
Keller does not expressly disclose wherein the method identifies and classifies the artificial spikes;
identifying, by executing machine-readable instructions with processor circuitry, a spike in the CGI signal data;
determining, by executing machine-readable instructions with the processor circuitry, whether the spike is an artificial spike; and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike, replacing, by executing machine-readable instructions with the processor circuitry, a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Noda discloses a method that identifies and classifies the false peaks/artificial spikes in signal data (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0053: peak detection system; and see paragraphs 0026 and 0030: identifies false peaks and removes them; paragraph 0056: software program/instruction) that includes;
identifying, by executing machine-readable instructions with processor circuitry, a spike in the CGI signal data (see paragraph 0063: peak candidate extractor, i.e. identifies candidate peaks; paragraph 0056: software program/instruction);
determining, by executing machine-readable instructions with the processor circuitry, whether the spike is an artificial spike (see paragraphs 0070 and 0090: determines, for each peak candidate, whether it is a false peak or true peak, and removes the false peak, paragraph 0056: software program/instruction); and
in response to determining that the spike is an artificial spike removing, by executing machine-readable instructions with the processor circuitry, the peak from appearing in the signal data (see paragraphs 0029, 0070, and 0090: determines, for each peak candidate, whether it is a false peak or true peak, and removes the false peak from the chromatogram; paragraph 0056: software program/instruction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Noda, i.e. identifying and removing false/unwanted peaks from the signal data, for the advantageous benefit of accurately removing unwanted spikes/peak data in the signal data that don’t meet a specific criterion. Once modified, modifying Keller to identify and remove unwanted spikes in the CGI data, the modification meets the limitation of identify a spike in the CGI signal data.
Keller and Noda do not expressly disclose replacing a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Tsuji discloses an apparatus that detect and removes individual noise spikes (see Abstract) that includes replacing a portion of the signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited signal data (see Abstract, Fig. 4, and column 6 lines 30-42: Each spike in the multipath noise is thereby replaced with the immediately preceding demodulated signal value, so that the noise spikes are removed individually, claimed transient corresponds to the tail end of the peak).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Tsuji, i.e. replacing the removed peak data with edited signal data, for the advantageous benefit of reconstructing a more accurate signal reading. Once modified, replacing removed peaks in the CGI data of Keller with edited signal data, the modification teaches replacing a portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and a transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data.
Regarding claim 18, Keller and Noda do not expressly disclose wherein replacing the portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and the transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data includes: determining a start time associated with the artificial spike; determining an end time associated with the transient response; removing a portion of the CGI signal data extending from the start time to the end time; and replacing the removed portion of the CGI signal data with edited CGI signal data corresponding to a last valid CGI point of the CGI signal data.
Tsuji discloses wherein replacing the portion of the CGI signal data including the artificial spike and the transient response of the artificial spike with edited CGI signal data includes: determining a start time associated with the artificial spike; determining an end time associated with the transient response (see Fig. 4 and column 4 lines 13-33: a gate pulse generator 6f that generates a gate pulse of a predetermined duration or width on the time axis when noise is detected, the pulse represents a start time and end time of each artificial noise spike as indicated on the time axis); removing a portion of the CGI signal data extending from the start time to the end time; and replacing the removed portion of the CGI signal data with edited CGI signal data corresponding to a last valid CGI point of the CGI signal data (see Abstract, Fig. 4, and column 6 lines 30-42: Each spike in the multipath noise is thereby replaced with the immediately preceding demodulated signal value, so that the noise spikes are removed individually).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Tsuji, i.e. replacing the removed peak data with edited signal data, for the advantageous benefit of reconstructing a more accurate signal reading. Once modified, replacing removed peaks in the CGI data of Keller with edited signal data, the modification teaches performed the claimed process on the CGI data of Keller.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (INITIAL RESULTS FROM THE VIBRATION MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR ARMY CARGO HELICOPTERS) in view of Noda (US 20160224830), Tsuji (US 6725027), and Katchanov (US 20220065778).
Regarding claim 5, Keller, Noda, and Tsuji do not expressly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to determine the start time associated with the artificial spike based on a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Katchanov discloses determining the start time associated with a peak/spike based on a derivative signal generated from the signal data (see paragraph 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Katchanov, i.e. analyzing a derivative of a signal, for the advantageous benefit of accurately pointing out the start and end time of peaks in a signal. Once modified, analyzing the derivative of the CGI signal of Keller to identify the start of a peak/spike, the modification teaches determining the start time associated with the artificial spike based on a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Regarding claim 12, Keller, Noda, and Tsuji do not expressly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor circuitry to determine the start time associated with the artificial spike based on a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Katchanov discloses determining the start time associated with a peak/spike based on a derivative signal generated from the signal data (see paragraph 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Katchanov, i.e. analyzing a derivative of a signal, for the advantageous benefit of accurately pointing out the start and end time of peaks in a signal. Once modified, analyzing the derivative of the CGI signal of Keller to identify the start of a peak/spike, the modification teaches determining the start time associated with the artificial spike based on a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Regarding claim 19, Keller, Noda, and Tsuji do not expressly disclose wherein the start time associated with the artificial spike is determined based on a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Katchanov discloses wherein the start time associated with a peak/spike is determined based on a derivative signal generated from the signal data (see paragraph 0064).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Katchanov, i.e. analyzing a derivative of a signal, for the advantageous benefit of accurately pointing out the start and end time of peaks in a signal. Once modified, analyzing the derivative of the CGI signal of Keller to identify the start of a peak/spike, the modification teaches determining the start time associated with the artificial spike based on a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (INITIAL RESULTS FROM THE VIBRATION MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FOR ARMY CARGO HELICOPTERS) in view of Noda (US 20160224830), Tsuji (US 6725027), Katchanov (US 20220065778), and Kaifosh (US 20200046265).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Keller, Noda, and Tsuji do not expressly disclose wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to determine the end time associated with the transient response based on a smoothed lagged CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data, i.e. wherein the end time associated with the transient response is determined based on a smoothed lagged CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Katchanov discloses determining the end time associated with the transient response based on derivative signal generated from the signal data (see paragraph 0064: the start and end times of the peaks corresponding to the times when the derivative of the signal 220 is maximum).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Katchanov, i.e. analyzing a derivative of a signal, for the advantageous benefit of accurately pointing out the start and end time of peaks in a signal. Once modified, analyzing the derivative of the CGI signal of Keller to identify the start of a peak/spike, the modification teaches determining the start time associated with the artificial spike based on a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Keller, Noda, Tsuji, and Katchanov does not expressly disclose wherein the signal is a smoothed lagged signal, i.e. the derivate is a smoothed lagged derivative.
Kaifosh discloses real-time spike detection and identification wherein the wherein the signal is processed with a smoothed lagged filter, i.e. wherein the signal is a smoothed lagged signal (see Abstract and paragraph 0007: detecting peaks in a time-lagged filter, i.e. in a smoothed lagged signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Kaifosh, i.e. filtering the signal to be analyzed using a time-lagged filter, for the advantageous benefit of filtering out unwanted noise while shifting the data in time to correct for delays introduced by the filter. Once modified, filtering the CGI signal of Keller, the modification would meet the claim limitations of wherein the previously discussed determined derivate is a smoothed lagged derivative.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Keller, Noda, and Tsuji do not expressly disclose determining a convergence starting point of the smoothed lagged CGI derivative signal and determining the end time associated with the transient response based further on the convergence starting point, i.e. wherein the end time associated with the transient response is determined based further on a convergence starting point of the smoothed lagged CGI derivative signal, and
wherein the end time is subsequent to a time associated with the convergence starting point.
Katchanov discloses determining a convergence starting point of a derivative signal and determining an end time associated with a transient response based further on the convergence starting point and wherein the end time is subsequent to a time associated with the convergence starting point (see paragraph 0064: the start and end times of the peaks corresponding to the times when the derivative of the signal 220 is maximum, obvious that end time comes after the start time, claim does not define the scope of a convergence of a starting point, maximum of the derivative is can be considered a convergence).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Katchanov, i.e. analyzing a derivative of a signal, for the advantageous benefit of accurately pointing out the start and end time of peaks in a signal. Once modified, analyzing the derivative of the CGI signal of Keller to identify the start of a peak/spike, the modification teaches determining the start time associated with the artificial spike based on a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data.
Keller, Noda, Tsuji, and Katchanov does not expressly disclose wherein the signal is a smoothed lagged signal, i.e. the derivate is a smoothed lagged derivative.
Kaifosh discloses real-time spike detection and identification wherein the wherein the signal is processed with a smoothed lagged filter, i.e. wherein the signal is a smoothed lagged signal (see Abstract and paragraph 0007: detecting peaks in a time-lagged filter, i.e. in a smoothed lagged signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Keller with the teachings of Kaifosh, i.e. filtering the signal to be analyzed using a time-lagged filter, for the advantageous benefit of filtering out unwanted noise while shifting the data in time to correct for delays introduced by the filter. Once modified, filtering the CGI signal of Keller, the modification would meet the claim limitations of wherein the previously discussed determined derivate is a smoothed lagged derivative.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ballan (US 20030062885) discloses removing a noise spike and replacing the removed spike with estimated signal data.
Grace (US 6334099) discloses removing artificial peaks/spikes with peak evaluating criterion in relation to height and width of the peaks.
Examiner Note:
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, while the prior art discloses various criterion to identify a peak in a CGI signal, the prior art of record does not disclose the specific combination of wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to: compare a peak of a CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data to a CGI derivative threshold; compare a peak of a lagged CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data to a lagged CGI derivative threshold; compare a peak of a washout CGI signal generated from the CGI signal data to a washout CGI threshold; and identify that the CGI signal data includes the spike in response to determining that the peak of the CGI derivative signal is greater than the CGI derivative threshold, that the peak of the lagged CGI derivative signal is greater than the lagged CGI derivative threshold, and that the peak of the washout CGI signal is greater than the washout CGI threshold.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, while the prior art discloses various criterion to identify a peak in a CGI signal, the prior art of record does not disclose the specific combination of wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the machine-readable instructions to: compare a CGI crossing point of a lagged CGI derivative signal generated from the CGI signal data to a lagged CGI derivative threshold; compare a CGI crossing point of a washout CGI signal generated from the CGI signal data to a washout CGI threshold; compare a last valid CGI point of the CGI signal data to a low CGI threshold; and classify the spike as an artificial spike in response to determining that either the CGI crossing point of the lagged CGI derivative signal is greater than the lagged CGI derivative threshold or the CGI crossing point of the washout CGI signal is greater than the washout CGI threshold, and that the last valid CGI point of the CGI signal data is less than the low CGI threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J DALBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J DALBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857