Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. All claims fall within a statutory category under § 101.
Yes the claims fall under statutory category.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Independent Claim 1 recites a method for "transmitting signals" by performing a series of mathematical steps: a Fourier transform to acquire an image, preprocessing (compression/encryption), an inverse Fourier transform, and modulation.
Mathematical Concepts: The use of Fourier and Inverse Fourier transforms are fundamental mathematical operations. Limiting these operations to the field of "transmitting signals" does not change their character as abstract mathematical concepts.
Mental Processes/Data Manipulation: The steps of "acquiring," "preprocessing," and "modulating" are high-level data handling functions. The specific preprocessing steps of "compression, encryption, or verification" are well-recognized as methods of organizing human activity (data management) or mental processes that can be performed through logical calculation.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover applying mathematical algorithms and/or calculations. The use of a computer or processing device include no more than applying the exception using a generic computer or computer component. The limitations are not directed to an improvement in the computer itself or a computer component and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept.
To distinguish ineligible claims that merely recite a judicial exception from eligible claims that require an implementation of judicial exception, the Supreme Court uses a two-step framework: Step One (Step 2A), determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts; and Step Two (Step 2B), if so, ask “what else is there in the claims?’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite the abstract idea (the mathematical transforms and data processing) and then simply append the generic step of "transmitting the first radio frequency signal." This is considered "insignificant post-solution activity." The claim does not recite a specific technical improvement to the transmitter hardware itself, nor does it describe how the "image-based" processing solves a specific technical problem in a way that is not merely the result of the mathematical algorithm.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The claims do not recite an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than the abstract idea. The hardware in Claim 11 (data processing module, signal-transmitting assembly) and Claim 19 (memory, processor) is described at a high level of generality and performs its standard, conventional function of executing code and transmitting signals.
There is no indication that the claim elements, individually or in combination, perform any function beyond the ordinary use of a computer executing an algorithm. The claims do not provide any unconventional architecture, sensor arrangement, or computer operation that would transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The dependent claims are also rejected because they merely add further details regarding the abstract idea or recite routine and conventional features. Claims specify that the "image" is a spectrogram (Claims 2, 7) or a 2D/bar code (Claims 4, 9), or they define a "mapping relationship" (Claims 3, 8). Choosing to represent data as a spectrogram or a 2D code is merely a choice of data format. The courts have held that shifting data from one format to another (visualization) is an abstract idea. Mapping data to a barcode (Claim 4) is a conventional way of organizing information. These limitations do not provide a technical improvement to the computer’s functionality; they only specify the type of information being mathematically transformed. Claims 5 and 10 recite an "image preprocessing model" acquired by training on sample image sets. Reciting the use of a "trained model" without specifying any particular unconventional architecture or mathematical structure is a high-level functional requirement. Under current USPTO guidance (e.g., 2024 AI Guidance), using a generic AI/machine learning model to perform data manipulation (like preprocessing) is treated as a "mental process" or a mathematical concept. The claim describes the result (a model that processes images) rather than a technical solution to a specific computing limitation. Claims 13-15 and 18recite specific types of processors (DSP, FPGA, CPU, SoC) and transmitters (heterodyne, zero-IF, etc.). These claims merely list conventional hardware components available in the industry. For instance, Claim 14’s list of "digital signal processor, field programmable gate array..." are the standard tools used to implement signal processing. Simply stating that the abstract idea is performed on an FPGA or using a "superheterodyne transmitter" does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention, as these components are performing their well-known, routine functions. Claim 20is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing the program. While this claim falls within a statutory category (a manufacture), it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1. The underlying instructions on the medium are directed to the same abstract idea and do not add any significantly more limitations to achieve eligibility.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 11-15, are and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fleizach (10060961) in view of Koretzky (10014002).
Regarding claim 1, Fleizach teaches a method for transmitting signals, comprising: acquiring a first image by performing a Fourier transform on first data to be transmitted (see col. 3 lines 10-20 and col. 4 lines 15-30);
performing first preprocessing on the first image, wherein the first preprocessing comprises at least one of compression, encryption, or verification (compression in col. 3 lines 10-20);
modulating the second data into a first radio frequency signal, and transmitting the first radio frequency signal (col. 3 lines 15-30, modulation).
Koretzky teaches acquiring second data by performing an inverse Fourier transform on the first image after the first preprocessing (see col 11 lines 50-65).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Fleizach the ability to use IFT as taught by Koretzky. The reason is to allow the transform frequency data.
Regarding claim 2, Fleizach teaches wherein the first image is a spectrogram of the first data, and the spectrogram of the first data is a graph of frequencies of the first data over time (see col. 4, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13-15, see the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 13, Fliezach column 3 lines 10-25. Regarding claim 14, Fliezach teaches this in column 3 lines 10-20. Regarding claim 15, Fliezach teaches this in figure 1 and col. 3 lines 10-46.
Regarding claims 19-20, see the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 recites: acquiring a spectrogram of the first data by performing the Fourier transform on the first data to be transmitted, wherein the spectrogram of the first data is a graph of frequencies the first data over time; and determining a first coded image corresponding to the spectrogram as the first image based on a mapping relationship between spectrograms and coded images.
Claim 5 recites: acquiring the first image after the first preprocessing by inputting the first image into the first image preprocessing model, wherein the first image preprocessing model is acquired by training a plurality of first sample image sets, wherein each of the first sample image sets comprises a first sample image and a second sample image, wherein the first sample image is acquired by performing the Fourier transform on first sample data, and the second sample image is acquired by performing the Fourier transform on the first sample data after the first preprocessing.
Claim 6 recites: demodulating a second radio frequency signal as received into third data; acquiring a second image by performing the Fourier transform on the third data; performing second preprocessing on the second image, wherein the second preprocessing comprises at least one of decompression, decryption, or verification; and acquiring fourth data by performing the inverse Fourier transform on the second image after the second preprocessing.
The above features are not found in the prior art. The 101 rejection must be overcome first.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676