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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/26 have been fully considered.
First, with regard to the 101 rejection, the amendments do not overcome the rejection. The newly added sparsity operation/procedure limitation is not something that is beyond what is normally done as an abstract idea for compression algorithms. The practical application must be an improvement to the abstract idea. With regard to the skipping step, this is still considered a mathematical algorithm.
With regard to claims 7-8, the amendments are still just added details to a mathematical algorithm.
A new 112 rejection is written below with regards to the term relatively.
The 112 rejection of claims 14 and 19 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1: Process (method).
Claims 17 and 18: Manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable storage device/software program product).
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).
Claims 1-20 are a mathematical concepts, that is mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to independent claims 1, 17, and 18, the method/computer-readable media (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of:
Data structuring/compression and mathematical mapping:
“configuring said input data into a block of data; dividing said data block into data sub-block(s); recording non-zero value(s) of said data sub-block(s).”
“forming a first bit mask block; dividing said first bit mask block into sub-block(s) mask(s); converting sub-block mask(s) with at least one non-zero valued cell into a packed or compressed data; forming a second bit mask block based on said sub-block mask(s); converting said second bit mask block mask a packed or compressed data.”
“assigning indices or location indicators to said packed or compressed data; storing said packed or compressed data in a first memory address space; and storing said indices or location indicators in a second memory address space.”
Mathematical/binary conversion and standard sparse formats:
“converting each cell of said data block into ones (1) and zeros (0)…to form said first bit mask block; and replacing said second bit mask block with a CSR compression format.” (Claim 5)
“representing a small granularity of indices (Row, Col) with an octree.” (Claim 6)
Algorithmic rules and patterns:
“recording non-zero values…in accordance with a first recording pattern” and detailed 4×4 mask assignment order (Claim 15–16; Claim 20).
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.
Additional elements:
Execution “with at least one of an NPU, CPU, GPU, DSP” (generic processors/accelerators).
Memory address spaces (generic storage).
Optional convolution operation and skipping (Claims 10–11).
Modalities (video, X-ray, MRI, LiDAR, etc.)—field-of-use.
Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract mathematical concepts into a practical application. The additional elements are generic computer implementation, data storage, and field-of-use limitations.:
Independent claim 1 is limited to receiving data, organizing into blocks/sub-blocks, forming bit masks, compressing, assigning indices, and storing to memory. These are generic computer data processing steps and data storage. There is no recitation of a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer (e.g., new memory architecture, cache scheduling, bus protocol) or to any other technology. Nor is there any control of a particular machine or transformation of an article beyond information encoding.
The recited processors and memory are generic components performing conventional functions (execute, store). Merely applying abstract data compression/masking on generic hardware does not integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Field-of-use limitations to certain data types (point clouds, event camera, medical/radar/LiDAR images) do not add meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
While dependent Claims 10–11 introduce skipping convolution when blocks are zero, which begins to tie the masks to conditional execution savings, those operational specifics are not present in the independent claim. Even in the dependents, no concrete architecture or quantified improvement is claimed; absent more, such steps often are treated as insignificant extra-solution activity or mere optimization instructions.
Claims 17 and 18 recites a computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause a computer to execute the same mathematical operations. Implementing an abstract idea as software stored on a generic storage medium is not a practical application of that idea. See Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, none of the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 also fail to recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. The recited processor, storage medium, and filter are all described at a high level of generality and perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (data collection, computation, and storage). The fidelity and regularization processing steps represent standard mathematical techniques long known in image reconstruction and compressed sensing.
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).
Thus, since claims 1, 17, and 18 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 17, and 18 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claims 2–16, 19 and 20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mathematical process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mathematical process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claim 2 is similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The term “relatively” in claim 1 and 17-18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term relatively is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Relatively is a term of degree but there is no baseline to compare against. It is recommended to have concrete language.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art is found for the claims. The closest prior art is Han (“Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding”).
The reason for allowance is that the following features are not found in the prior art: configuring said input data into a block of data; dividing said data block into data sub-block(s); recording non-zero value(s) of said data sub-block(s); forming a first bit mask block; dividing said first bit mask block into sub-block(s) mask(s); converting sub-block mask(s) with at least one non-zero valued cell into a packed or compressed data; forming a second bit mask block based on said sub-block mask(s); converting said second bit mask block mask a packed or compressed data; assigning indices or location indicators to said packed or compressed data; storing said packed or compressed data in a first memory address space; and storing said indices or location indicators in a second memory address space.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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