DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted on May 18, 2026 for Application # 18/263,322 filed on July 27, 2023 in which claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-30 are pending, of which claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and also claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, 17, 22, 24 and 29 are amended.
No claims are canceled.
No claims are newly added.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations in claim 17 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Specifically Examiner notes the following language interpreted in this manner:
Claim 17 limitation “means for”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 17 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Fig. 2D, Fig. 3 also paragraph 0035-paragraph 0041
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. because the claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.)
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—Claims 1-30 recite a method, system and readable medium respectively.
The analysis of claims 1, 9, 17 and 24 is as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 1, 9, 17 and 24 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “receiving, via a first circuit, an input data stream from one or more sensors;
detecting, via the first circuit, while a second circuit is in a dormant state comprising a reduced power state in which the second circuit refrains from processing data of the input data stream, a state change has occurred between a first input of the input data stream and a second input of the input data stream, the second input being a next succeeding input to the first input of the input data stream; and
triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to exit the dormant state and resume processing the data of the input data stream to determine a classification of the input data stream, in response to detecting the state change” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of data stream classification when state change and to reduce power state (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group and with a pen & paper.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “apparatus” and “readable medium”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “receiving, via a first circuit, an input data stream from one or more sensors;
detecting, via the first circuit, while a second circuit is in a dormant state comprising a reduced power state in which the second circuit refrains from processing data of the input data stream, a state change has occurred between a first input of the input data stream and a second input of the input data stream, the second input being a next succeeding input to the first input of the input data stream; and
triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to exit the dormant state and resume processing the data of the input data stream to determine a classification of the input data stream, in response to detecting the state change” are mere using circuit for classifying (i.e., actionable response); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “detecting, via the first circuit, while a second circuit is in a dormant state “, detecting the state change are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g. for classifying ) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of operation based on detecting the state change is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 9, 17 and 24 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The analysis of claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-23 and 25-20 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one: Does claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-23 and 25-20 recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations of “ Claim 2, the classification is different from a state detected via the first circuit.
Claims 3, 10, 18 and 25, triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to extract a set of features of at least the second input of the input data stream.
Claims 4, 11, 19 and 26, computing, via the first circuit, a similarity score between the first input and the second input, the state change being detected based on the similarity score.
Claims 5, 12, 20 and 27, comparing, via the first circuit, the similarity score to a predefined threshold; and detecting the state change has occurred in response to the similarity score being below the predefined threshold.
Claims 6, 14, 21 and 28, the similarity score is based on a metric selected from a group consisting of a peak signal to noise ratio, a structural similarity, and a cosine similarity.
Claims 7, 15, 22 and 29, triggering via the first circuit, the second circuit to perform the classification of the input data stream, in response to a predefined time period elapsing without the state change being detected.
Claims 8, 23 and 30, triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to return to the dormant state and setting a subsequent classification for at least one subsequent input of the input data stream to be equal to a previously computed classification for a preceding input of the input data stream.
Claim 13, the control device triggers the second circuit to return to the dormant state, in response to a second similarity score computed for the second input and a third input exceeding the predefined threshold.
Claim 16, in which the state change detection device comprises a binary classifier ” as drafted, are mental steps based on various processes can be performed in a human mind of data stream classification when state change (acts of thinking, decision making). These limitations, therefore fall within the human mind processes group and with a pen & paper.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as just stated as related to the technical field of computer science . Although the claim recites that the recited functionality includes “method”, “apparatus” and “readable medium”, these computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. In addition, the claim recites “Claim 2, the classification is different from a state detected via the first circuit.
Claims 3, 10, 18 and 25, triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to extract a set of features of at least the second input of the input data stream.
Claims 4, 11, 19 and 26, computing, via the first circuit, a similarity score between the first input and the second input, the state change being detected based on the similarity score.
Claims 5, 12, 20 and 27, comparing, via the first circuit, the similarity score to a predefined threshold; and detecting the state change has occurred in response to the similarity score being below the predefined threshold.
Claims 6, 14, 21 and 28, the similarity score is based on a metric selected from a group consisting of a peak signal to noise ratio, a structural similarity, and a cosine similarity.
Claims 7, 15, 22 and 29, triggering via the first circuit, the second circuit to perform the classification of the input data stream, in response to a predefined time period elapsing without the state change being detected.
Claims 8, 23 and 30, triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to return to the dormant state and setting a subsequent classification for at least one subsequent input of the input data stream to be equal to a previously computed classification for a preceding input of the input data stream.
Claim 13, the control device triggers the second circuit to return to the dormant state, in response to a second similarity score computed for the second input and a third input exceeding the predefined threshold.
Claim 16, in which the state change detection device comprises a binary classifier” are mere using circuit for classifying (i.e., actionable response); the computers that perform those functions and the mental steps are recited at a high level of generality that do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception and are insufficient to integrate the mental steps into a practical application. Although the claim recites the additional functionality “detecting, via the first circuit, while a second circuit is in a dormant state “, detecting the state change are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments (e.g. for classifying ) and therefore likewise amounts to no more than a mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is insufficient to integrate the steps into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No— The recitation in the preamble is insufficient to transform a judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble elements are recited at a high level of generality that simply links to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claimed extra-solution of operation based on detecting the state change is acknowledged to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see, e.g., court recognized WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Similarly, the gathering and determining are also recited at a high level of generality and merely generally link to respective technological environments. The claim thus recites computing components only at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above- identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
For the reasons above, claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-23 and 25-30 are rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., "Data-Triggered Approach for Real-Time Machine Learning in loT Systems", 2020 IEEE 63RD International Midwest Symposium on Circuits And Systems (MWSCAS), IEEE, 9 August 2020, pp.101-104, (hereinafter ‘Cheng’) (IDS 7/27/23) in view of Noh et al. US 2007/0177617 A1 (hereinafter ‘Noh’) as applied, and further in view of Cho et al. US 2012/0072955 A1 (hereinafter ‘Cho’).
As per claim 1, Cheng disclose, A method for operating an artificial neural network (Cheng: Page 101, 1. Introduction: disclose an artificial intelligence systems. Examiner equates artificial intelligence systems to artificial neural network), comprising:
receiving, via a first circuit, an input data stream from one or more sensors (Cheng: Page 101, Abstract: disclose devices ‘the first circuit’ that collect ‘receiving’ streaming data via sensors and analyze the data);
the second input being a next succeeding input to the first input of the input data stream (Cheng: Page 104, V. Conclusions: disclose the event-trigger mechanism detects significant changes in the features of incoming input stream and, as fail-safe system, time-trigger mechanism achieves periodic reinforcement. Examiner interprets this teaching as the second stream and first stream are next to each other); and
triggering (Cheng: Page 102, III. Feature Similarity-Based Data Preprocessing for the AI Triggering System: disclose triggering mechanism establishes classification), via the first circuit, the second circuit to perform a classification of the input data stream (Cheng: Page 102, III. Feature Similarity-Based Data Preprocessing for the AI Triggering System: disclose calling ML classifier for the recent input frame), in response to detecting the state change (Cheng: Page 102, III. Feature Similarity-Based Data Preprocessing for the AI Triggering System: disclose incoming data frame shows a significant change (if HFTM can detect this change to a novel pattern), the actual ML algorithm will be called to classify the novel input).
It is noted, however, Cheng did not specifically detail the aspects of
detecting, via the first circuit, while a second circuit is in a dormant state, if a state change has occurred between a first input of the input data stream and a second input of the input data stream as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Noh achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
detecting, via the first circuit, while a second circuit is in a dormant state, if a state change has occurred between a first input of the input data stream and a second input of the input data stream (Noh: paragraph 0008: disclose dormant state maintaining an idle state when data transmission or reception is not performed between a Web browser of a terminal ‘first circuit’ and a server ‘second circuit’ and returning to an access state when a user demand is input. For a packet call, a state in which an application using the packet call is operating but not transmitting or receiving data to or from a wireless network is called a dormant or preservation state).
The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently processing a dormant state in a packet service between communication networks providing the packet service using different mobile communication techniques and a multi-mode terminal for the same (Noh: paragraph 0003).
It is noted, however, neither Cheng nor Noh specifically detail the aspects of
comprising a reduced power state in which the second circuit refrains from processing data of the input data stream;
exit the dormant state and resume processing the data of the input data stream to determine a classification as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Cho achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
comprising a reduced power state in which the second circuit refrains from processing data of the input data stream (Cho: paragraph 0050: disclose when data is not received for the purpose of reducing power, an unnecessary waste of power may be reduced using the sleep mode);
exit the dormant state and resume processing the data of the input data stream to determine a classification (Cho: paragraph 0013: disclose switch the data reception module to be in a sleep mode in a duration different from the reception duration; a layer classification unit to classify the received main stream data and preview stream data into expansion layer data and base layer data; and an internal memory to store the classified data).
The motivation for doing so would have been when data is not received for the purpose of reducing power, an unnecessary waste of power may be reduced using the sleep mode (Cho: paragraph 0050).
Cheng, Cho and Noh are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and both from the same “problem-solving area”. Namely, they are both from the field of “Data Stream Systems”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Cheng, Cho and Noh because they are both directed to data stream systems and both are from the same field of endeavor. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal option to include the restriction features of Noh and Cho with the method described by Cheng in order to solve the problem posed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Noh and Cho with Cheng to obtain the invention as specified in instant claim 1.
As per claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, which the classification is different from a state detected via the first circuit (Cheng: Page 102, III. Feature Similarity-Based Data Preprocessing for the AI Triggering System: disclose calling ML classifier for the recent input frame).
As per claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to extract a set of features of at least the second input of the input data stream (Cheng: Page 101: 1. Introduction: disclose real-time pre-processing (or feature extraction) to design a system that achieves energy efficiency without losing classification accuracy).
As per claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, computing, via the first circuit, a similarity score between the first input and the second input, the state change being detected based on the similarity score (Cheng: Page 101: disclose ML classifier along with a proposed similarity metric between incoming data frames).
As per claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, comparing, via the first circuit, the similarity score to a predefined threshold; and detecting the state change has occurred in response to the similarity score being below the predefined threshold (Cheng: Page 104: Section IV: disclose trigger method achieves high accuracy (closely matching the baseline classifier) even with higher threshold values).
As per claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, the similarity score is based on a metric selected from a group consisting of a peak signal to noise ratio, a structural similarity, and a cosine similarity (Cheng: Pages 102-103: Section III: disclose for image features to use as input to Euclidean distance for similarity computations. Ratio between the last two absolute differences can be used as a relative measure).
As per claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, triggering via the first circuit (Cheng: Page 102, III. Feature Similarity-Based Data Preprocessing for the AI Triggering System: disclose triggering mechanism establishes classification), the second circuit to perform the classification of the input data stream (Cheng: Page 102, III. Feature Similarity-Based Data Preprocessing for the AI Triggering System: disclose calling ML classifier for the recent input frame), in response to a predefined time period elapsing without a state change detection (Cheng: Page 104, Section V: disclose input stream time-trigger mechanism achieves periodic reinforcement).
As per claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to return to the dormant state and setting a subsequent classification (Cheng: Page 102, III. Feature Similarity-Based Data Preprocessing for the AI Triggering System: disclose triggering mechanism establishes classification) for at least one subsequent input of the input data stream to be equal to a previously computed classification for a preceding input of the input data stream (Cheng: Page 102, III. Feature Similarity-Based Data Preprocessing for the AI Triggering System: disclose calling ML classifier for the recent input frame).
As per claim 9, Cheng disclose, An apparatus (Cheng: Page 101: Abstract: disclose devices that collect streaming data. Examiner equates device to apparatus), comprising: remaining limitations in this claim 9 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 10, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 3. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 10 limitations under the same rationale as claim 3.
As per claim 11, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 11 limitations under the same rationale as claim 4.
As per claim 12, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 5. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 12 limitations under the same rationale as claim 5.
As per claim 13, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 9, 11 and 12 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, the control device triggers the second circuit to return to the dormant state, in response to a second similarity score computed for the second input and a third input exceeding the predefined threshold (Cheng: Pages 102-103: Section III: disclose for image features to use as input to Euclidean distance for similarity computations. Ratio between the last two absolute differences can be used as a relative measure).
As per claim 14, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 14 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 15, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 7. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 15 limitations under the same rationale as claim 7.
As per claim 16, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 9 above. In addition, Cheng disclose, in which the state change detection device comprises a binary classifier (Cheng: Page 103: Section IV: disclose Local Binary Patterns (LBP) to perform texture matching inside the trigger mechanism for the machine learning module).
As per claim 17, Cheng disclose, An apparatus (Cheng: Page 101: Abstract: disclose devices that collect streaming data. Examiner equates device to apparatus), comprising: remaining limitations in this claim 17 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 18, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 3. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 18 limitations under the same rationale as claim 3.
As per claim 19, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 19 limitations under the same rationale as claim 4.
As per claim 20, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 5. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 20 limitations under the same rationale as claim 5.
As per claim 21, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 21 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 22, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 7. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 22 limitations under the same rationale as claim 7.
As per claim 23, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 8. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 23 limitations under the same rationale as claim 8.
As per claim 24, Cheng disclose, A non-transitory computer readable medium (Cheng: Page 101: Section I: disclose storage on devices. Examiner equates storage to non-transitory computer readable medium) having encoded thereon program code, the program code being executed by a processor and comprising: remaining limitations in this claim 24 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 25, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 3. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 25 limitations under the same rationale as claim 3.
As per claim 26, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 26 limitations under the same rationale as claim 4.
As per claim 27, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 5. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 27 limitations under the same rationale as claim 5.
As per claim 28, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 6. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 28 limitations under the same rationale as claim 6.
As per claim 29, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 7. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 29 limitations under the same rationale as claim 7.
As per claim 30, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 8. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 30 limitations under the same rationale as claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 18, 2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 24 are directed to the abstract idea of receiving, via a first circuit, an input data stream from one or more sensors;
detecting, via the first circuit, while a second circuit is in a dormant state comprising a reduced power state in which the second circuit refrains from processing data of the input data stream, a state change has occurred between a first input of the input data stream and a second input of the input data stream, the second input being a next succeeding input to the first input of the input data stream; and
triggering, via the first circuit, the second circuit to exit the dormant state and resume processing the data of the input data stream to determine a classification of the input data stream, in response to detecting the state change. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements such as classifying a stream state change and reduced power which not in use, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
A grouping for events from a system into classifying by detecting a state change in the input data stream, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Mathematical relationships and algorithms have been found by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams) to be abstract ideas. For example, in Benson, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be an exception, as was an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements recited in the claim include the limitations: a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the method; of classifying when detected a state change of the input data stream, can also be interpreted as algorithmic logic. These limitations are directed to realizing the mathematical algorithm in a computer system. Executing the using a model to reduced power state in second circuit is little more than a broad recitation of generic use of a computer (i.e., executing). Providing the classification by detected state change is at most insignificant post solution activity of reduced power state which not in use. The preamble's recitation of a "computer-readable medium" and a "computer" are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because merely providing classification and executing the algorithm by a computer is akin to adding the words “apply it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Such limitations are not enough to add significantly more to the method of business rules of classification when detected state change, which represent mathematical relationships and algorithms.
Considering all the limitations in combination, the claimed additional computer elements do not show any inventive concept in applying the mathematical operations, such as improving the performance of a computer or any other technology. The steps describe nothing more than a computer’s basic function of reduced power when not in use of the second circuit for classifying when detected state change, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the calculation. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, 17 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. US 2014/0057623 A1 disclose “CAPACITY STATION ACTIVATION METHOD, RADIO COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM”
US Pub. US 2019/0336053 A1 disclose “System for controlling activation of analyte sensor electronics circuitry, has system structure for exiting lower power state and transiting into operational state based on indication and comparison indicating that level of analyte”
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 PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights