DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/18/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1-2, 8, & 11-15 have been amended. Claim 16-20 are new.
Applicant’s amendments, see Claims, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections of the claims have been withdrawn. Note: Claims are part of the specification, objections to the claims are therefore objections to the specification.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 05/19/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 05/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that:
“Applicant respectfully observes that whether a person of ordinary skill would know how to implement a limitation is the inquiry under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), not §112(b).”
Examiner respectfully responds:
There is not sufficient disclosure as to how the 112(b) issues are done in either the claims nor in the rest of the specifications. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to implement the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 05/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that:
“Applicant respectfully submits that this reflects a reading of the claim that the specification does not support. The claim does not recite the resolution of the data stream; it recites the resolution of the mark position.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111).
The amended claim states “processing the plurality of samples through a decimation circuit comprising a plurality of cascaded stages, wherein the decimation circuit is configured to output a reduced set of samples in an output data pipe” & “the output data pipe is the same a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample of interest in the input data pipe”. It is not clear how data could go through a decimation circuit (which discards data) and then still have the same time resolution(amount of data per time).
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 05/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that:
“A. Step 2A, Prong One: the claims do not recite a mental process or a mathematical concept.”
And that:
“A person cannot practically observe, in his or her mind, whether a given stage of such a pipeline has produced an output on a given clock cycle or how full the following stage is at that instant, much less do so for every stage on every clock cycle in real time.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Computers perform judicial exceptions more quickly than humans could perform the same judicial exceptions in their mind but a judicial exception done by a computer is still a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”). The tracking and manipulation of data to create more data is at least under the BRI either a mental process or a mathematical concept.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 05/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that:
“Nor do the claims recite a mathematical concept. The claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or equation. That a claimed hardware process includes a scaling operation does not convert the claim into a mathematical concept;”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Analysis:
A “scaling operation” is at least under the BRI a mathematical process or a mental process. An operation applied to data to produce data is at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation either a mathematical concept or a mental process.
Conclusion:
At least under the BRI, the claims recite either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page , filed 05/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that:
“Even assuming an exception were recited, the claims plainly integrate it into a practical application because they improve the functioning of the signal processing device itself.”
& that:
“That capability is what permits accurate trigger alignment in an oscilloscope and phase correction in a spectrum analyzer downstream of decimation. This is an improvement to the operation of measurement hardware, not the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106(I): “Because abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon "are the basic tools of scientific and technological work", the Supreme Court has expressed concern that monopolizing these tools by granting patent rights may impede innovation rather than promote it.”
Analysis:
A judicial exception may be and often is useful, but is still not patentable subject matter. A judicial exception might improve the operation of a device, but if the device is generic or conventional then the device would not be sufficient to incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application at revised step 2A prong two nor at step 2B.
Conclusion:
The inventive concept is a mathematical concept or mental process without sufficient material to incorporate it into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page 12 line 23 to page 13 line 7, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that:
“Separately, Applicant respectfully submits that the Prong Two analysis in the Office Action does not account for most of the claim.”
& that:
“the per-stage tracking operation keyed to the state of those stages, and the output of the mark position as metadata are not data gathering”.
& that:
“the claims are not a general recitation of a field of use appended to an abstract idea, but a specific hardware pipeline structure and a specific manner of operating it.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
It is not the case that each step should address every part of the claim; rather, the whole 101 analysis should address all of the claim. In particular, subject matter which is determined to be a judicial exception should not then be evaluated as to whether that subject matter is “additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception”. Any additional elements are addressed in step 2A Prong Two or step 2B. Processes which intake data and create data are judicial exceptions of either mental processes or mathematical concepts, and they would need to be incorporated into a practical application at step 2A Prong Two or at step 2B for the subject matter to be patentable.
A process which collects data upon which a judicial exception is applied is extra solution activity of data gathering. If such a process included elements which were neither generic or conventional then such extra solution activity could potentially incorporate a judicial exception into a practical application. The current claims recite generic and conventional elements of “signal processing device” & “decimation circuit”, and the rest of the claim(s) are directed towards operations on data.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment page 13 line 8 to page 14 line 10, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to 35 USC have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that:
“establishes at most that oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, and decimation circuits were individually known. Applicant does not dispute that. None of the cited documents is offered as evidence, and none in fact shows, that the ordered combination recited in claim 1 was well-understood, routine, and conventional:”
& that:
“an element that is absent from the prior art cannot simultaneously be conventional.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
It was not argued whether the judicial exception(s) are convention or not; that would not be relevant. A judicial exception is a judicial exception no matter how innovative it may be. A claim which recites a judicial exception must have an element to incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application. Revised Step 2A Prong Two and step 2B are directed towards whether the additional element(s) is sufficient to incorporate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. The only elements in the claim are “signal processing device” and “decimation circuit”; the first the applicant has acknowledged as conventional the latter is not significantly more than generic computer elements to perform the judicial exceptions.
Conclusion:
Judicial exceptions are recited in the claims but there is not sufficient additional elements to incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]:
Claim 1 in lines 11-12 recites the limitation "tracking the marked sample through the decimation circuit to determine a mark position of the marked sample within the reduced set of samples in the output data pipe". It is unclear how “tracking the marked sample” is done or how a “mark position” is determined. Additionally, the “marked sample” is apparently moved and so a “mark position” would have to be updated somehow. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to implement this limitation.
Claim 1 in lines 22-24 recites the limitation "a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample of interest in the output data pipe is the same as a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample of interest in the input data pipe". It is not clear how data could be removed form an input data stream and the resolution (i.e. data per time or clock cycle) of the output data stream be the same as the input data stream.
Claim 11 in lines 11-12 recites the limitation "a tracking circuit configured to track the marked sample through the decimation circuit to determine a mark position of the marked sample within the reduced set of samples in the output data pipe by updating the mark position at each stage pipe …". It is unclear how “tracking the marked sample” is done or how a “mark position” is determined. Additionally, the “marked sample” is apparently moved and so a “mark position” would have to be updated somehow. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to implement this limitation.
Claim 11 in lines 20-21 recites the limitation "such that a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample of interest in the output data pipe is the same as a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample of interest in the input data pipe;". It is not clear how data could be removed form an input data stream and the resolution (i.e. data per time or clock cycle) of the output data stream be the same as the input data stream.
Claim 19 in lines 9-11 recites the limitation "a tracking circuit configured to track the marked sample through the decimation circuit to determine a mark position of the marked sample within the reduced set of samples in the output data pipe by updating the mark position at each stage". It is unclear how “tracking the marked sample” is done or how a “mark position” is determined. Additionally, the “marked sample” is apparently moved and so a “mark position” would have to be updated somehow. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to implement this limitation.
Claim 19 in lines 18-21 recites the limitation " such that a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample of interest in the output data pipe is the same as a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample of interest in the input data pipe". It is not clear how data could be removed form an input data stream and the resolution (i.e. data per time or clock cycle) of the output data stream be the same as the input data stream.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim’:
Claims 2-10 & 16-18, 12-15, and 20 are rejected for inheriting rejected limitation(s) from their parent claims 1, 11, and 19 (respectively).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“marking a specific sample within the input data pipe as a sample of interest, the specific sample having a mark position within the input data pipe, the mark position indicating a location of the specific sample within the input data pipe;”
“processing the plurality of samples through a decimation circuit comprising a plurality of cascaded stages, wherein the decimation circuit is configured to output a reduced set of samples in an output data pipe;”
“tracking the marked sample through the decimation circuit to determine a mark position of the marked sample within the reduced set of samples in the output data pipe, wherein the tracking comprises updating the mark position at each stage of the plurality of cascaded stages in dependence on whether the stage has generated an output, the updating comprising scaling the mark position according to a decimation factor of the stage and offsetting the scaled mark position in dependence on an extent to which a next stage of the decimation circuit is already filled with data;”
“outputting the mark position as metadata associated with the reduced set of samples, the mark position that is output as metadata retaining a fractional component of the scaling,”
“wherein, by retaining the fractional component, the marked sample is tracked through the decimation circuit such that a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample of interest in the output data pipe is the same as a time resolution with which the mark position identifies the sample interest in the input data pipe.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Analysis:
Instant application para 0003: “the input signals are often subjected to various signal processing operations such as mixing, filtering, decimation, and compression.”. The claims recite limitations within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “marking a specific sample within the input data pipe”, “processing the plurality of samples through a decimation circuit”, “tracking the marked sample”, “outputting the mark position as metadata”, “resolution of the mark position in the output data pipe is the same as a resolution of the mark position in the input data pipe.” Can be done in the mind or by generic computing elements. The operation of “decimation” or removing data from input data is an operation which can be done as a mental process or as a mathematical process.
Conclusion:
Therefore (at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation), the claim is recites limitations within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional limitation of:
“receiving a plurality of samples in an input data pipe, wherein the input data pipe comprises a predetermined number of samples to be processed each clock cycle;”
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“signal processing device”, “decimation circuit”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process,”
See MPEP 2106.05(h) : “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use."”
See MPEP 2106.05(c): “The nature of the article transformed. Transformation of a physical or tangible object or substance is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application) than the transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment.”
Analysis:
The limitation is not significantly more than extra solution activity (pre-solution data gathering). The elements are generic computing elements indicating a computer environment which cannot incorporate a judicial exception into a practical application. Both “samples” and “input data pipe” are collections of data and are not elements which could incorporate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, transformations of intangible concepts (such as “marking a specific sample within the input data pipe”) is not effective at incorporating a judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not 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?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“signal processing device”, “decimation circuit”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I):
“When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a))”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP,”
Analysis:
The “signal processing device”, & decimation circuit” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as demonstrated by at least the references of:
US 9946686 B2 “Measuring Device And A Method For The Decimation Of A Datastream” (Reich) teaches “signal processing device”, & decimation circuit” see Fig. 1-2: “Decimation”
US 7401007 B1 “Method, Computer Program And Apparatus For Extracting Large Size Signal Data Samples With An Automatically Adjusted Decimation Ratio” (Su) see Fig. 1-18: “Signal Decimation”.
US 5917734 A “Parallel Decimator Method And Apparatus” (Gaglani) see Fig. 1, & column 2 line 25: “FIG. 1 shows 4 Mhz to 2 Mhz decimation;”
Additionally instant application para 0004 states “Decimation is a common signal processing technique used in DSOs and spectrum analyzers.”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the plurality of cascaded stages are decimate-by-two stages”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “decimate by two” are computations which can be done in the mind or by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein the decimation circuit is configured to process multiple samples per clock cycle.”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “process multiple samples per clock cycle” are computations which can be done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein the marked sample is used for triggering in an oscilloscope application.”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “marked sample is used for triggering in an oscilloscope application” are computations which can be done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the marked sample is used for phase correction in a spectrum analyzer application.”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “marked sample is used for phase correction in a spectrum analyzer application” are computations which can be done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“further comprising using the mark position to align a trigger when plotting data.”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “using the mark position to align a trigger when plotting data” are computations which can be done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“further comprising using the mark position to correct a phase offset introduced during signal acquisition.”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “using the mark position to correct a phase offset introduced during signal acquisition” are computations which can be done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein the mark position is used to determine a location of the marked sample within the reduced set of samples output from the decimation circuit.”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “mark position is used to determine the location of the marked sample within the reduced set of samples output from the decimation circuit” are computations which can be done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein the mark position is used to facilitate data compression operations of the signal processing device.”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “mark position is used to facilitate data compression operations of the signal processing device” are computations which can be done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein the mark position is used to facilitate plotting operations of the signal processing device.”
Explanation:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed towards “mark position is used to facilitate plotting operations of the signal processing device” are computations which can be done by generic computing elements.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 16:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein the scaling comprises dividing the mark position by two.”
Explanation:
Claim does not recite any additional elements. This additional limitation is further directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea groupings of either mental process or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
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.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 17:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 16 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein the offsetting comprises adding one-half of a width of the output data pipe to the divided mark position when the next stage of the decimation circuit is already half filled with data, and holding the divided mark position when the next stage of the decimation circuit is not already half filled with data.”
Explanation:
This limitation is directed further directed towards the judicial abstract idea groupings of either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 17 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 17 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 18:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for tracking a sample of interest in a signal processing device”, which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein the updating comprises holding current value of the mark position when the stage has not generated an output”
Explanation:
This limitation is directed further directed towards the judicial abstract idea groupings of either mental processes or mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 18 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim 18 does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 11-15, & 19-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-10, & 16-18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190212369 A1.
US 5436858 A "Decimation Circuit And Method For Filtering Quantized Signals While Providing Phase Angle Correction With A Substantially Linear Phase Response" (Staver) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 20190140625 A1 "Decimation Filter" (Straeussnigg) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 20060087466 A1 "Digital Signal Processor Optimized For Interpolation And Decimation" (Domingo) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 7834780 B2 "Waveform Compression And Display" (Sullivan) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights