DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and Fig. 11) are objected to because they contain text that is not clearly legible. The text in the drawing should be clearly legible, and the text as currently presented, is not easily recognizable, mainly the subscripts.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/30/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Examiner Note: In particular, documents JP2003-256406 and “Real inversion of the Laplace transform in numerical singular value decomposition” have not been provided. However, the examiner has found the documents believed to be cited in the IDS and has added them to the record.
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 1-10 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.
A feature calculation apparatus, comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out a calculation process of calculating, for each of n consecutive intervals (α0, α1], (α1, α2], . . . , (αn−1, αn], a value νy−b((αk−1, αk]) as a feature of a signal y(t) approximated by formula (1) below and including an offset b, the value νy−b((αk−1, αk]) being approximated by formula (2) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
31
11
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where K and n are each a natural number, b and ξ1, ξ2, . . . , ξK are each a real number, β1, β2, . . . , βK are each a positive number, and α0, α1, . . . , αn are each a positive number that satisfies βmin=α0<α1< . . . <αn=βmax where βmin≤min{β1, β2, . . . , βK} and βmax≥max{β1, β2, . . . , βK}.
Claim 9 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A feature calculation method, comprising calculating, by at least one processor and for each of n consecutive intervals (α0, α1], (α1, α2], . . . , (αn−1, αn], a value νy−b((αk−1, αk]) as a feature of a signal y(t) approximated by formula (9) below and including an offset b, the value νy−b((αk−1, αk]) being approximated by formula (10) below:
PNG
media_image2.png
125
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where K and n are each a natural number, b and ξ1, ξ2, . . . , ξK are each a real number, β1, β2, . . . , βK are each a positive number, and α0, α1, . . . , αn are each a positive number that satisfies βmin=α0<α1< . . . <αn=βmax where βmin≤min{β1, β2, . . . , βK} and βmax≥βmax{β1, β2, . . . , βK}.
Claim 10 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing therein a program for causing a computer to carry out a process of calculating, for each of n consecutive intervals (α0, α1], (α1, α2], . . . , (αn−1, αn], a value νy−b((αk−1, αk]) as a feature of a signal y(t) approximated by formula (11) below and including an offset b, the value νy−b((αk−1, αk]) being approximated by formula (12) below:
PNG
media_image3.png
115
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where K and n are each a natural number, b and ξ1, ξ2, . . . , ξK are each a real number, β1, β2, . . . , βK are each a positive number, and α0, α1, . . . , αn are each a positive number that satisfies βmin=α0<α1< . . . <αn=βmax where βmin≤min{β1, β2, . . . , βK} and βmax≥max{β1, β2, . . . , βK}.
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 computer processor and computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing therein a program for causing a computer does 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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 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).
Dependent claims 3 and 5 are similarly ineligible. Such claims add additional software limitation in relation to an output process. The additional limitation of outputting data equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data reporting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The determination of such data values adds 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).
Dependent claim 7 is similarly ineligible. The additional limitation only describes the type of signal processed using the recited abstract idea. Furthermore, merely receiving or obtaining such data equates to extrasolution data activity, i.e. data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bajzer (Pade-Laplace method for analysis of fluorescence intensity decay) discloses a calculation process of calculating a feature of signal approximated by formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
31
11
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
31
11
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the feature of the signal y(t) is approximated using a summation of the amplitude values Ck divided by other parameters, i.e. ξk,(see page 80 first Section 2.1 first paragraph: see equation (1)
PNG
media_image4.png
39
136
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, see page 80 equation (4)
PNG
media_image5.png
46
145
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Daviso (US 20180188195) discloses analyzing a multicomponent signal approximated by formula (1) wherein the formula can contain an offset parameter (see paragraphs 0312-0313: discloses multicomponent summation formula with an offset parameter O).
Rajaduray (US 20190324077) discloses determining a characteristic value representative of an average of a plurality of decay curves, wherein the characteristic value is determining for each of n consecutive intervals (α0, α1], (α1, α2], . . . , (αn−1, αn] (see paragraph 0098:
PNG
media_image6.png
62
157
media_image6.png
Greyscale
).
The relevant prior art does not disclssoe the claim limitations of carrying out a calculation process of calculating, for each of n consecutive intervals (α0, α1], (α1, α2], . . . , (αn−1, αn], a value νy−b((αk−1, αk]) as a feature of a signal y(t) approximated by formula (1) below and including an offset b, the value νy−b((αk−1, αk]) being approximated by formula (2) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
31
11
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where K and n are each a natural number, b and ξ1, ξ2, . . . , ξK are each a real number, β1, β2, . . . , βK are each a positive number, and α0, α1, . . . , αn are each a positive number that satisfies βmin=α0<α1< . . . <αn=βmax where βmin≤min{β1, β2, . . . , βK} and βmax≥max{β1, β2, . . . , βK}.
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