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 .
Claims 1, 3-15, 18, 20-22, 31, and 33 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 3 and 18 are newly amended by the response received May 15, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. However, amended FIG. 20, received on May 15, 2026, does not meet this requirement — see, for example, the array of white dots that causes the lines, text, and numbers to appear fuzzy and blurry. This may be caused by dithering being applied when a conversion from greyscale to black has taken place; if so, Examiner recommends ensuring that any drawings to be filed do not contain any grey elements.
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.
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, 3-15, 18, 20-22, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106.
Regarding Eligibility Step 1, each of the claims is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Regarding Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One, each of the claims recites abstract ideas, which is a judicial exception. Specifically, each of the claims recites mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations and/or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, independent claim 1 recites “A method for processing distributions of data, the method comprising: executing an arithmetic operation on at least one data item selected; outputting a first result of the arithmetic operation executed on the at least one data item selected; executing the arithmetic operation on input distribution data selected, wherein the input distribution data selected represents a distribution of uncertainty associated with the at least one data item selected; and outputting a second result of the arithmetic operation executed on the input distribution data selected, wherein the second result comprises output distribution data representing uncertainty associated with the first result.”
Regarding the remaining recited limitations “a first arithmetic logic unit of a microarchitecture of a processor” [to perform aforementioned executing and outputting], “a first register of the microarchitecture” [from which the aforementioned at least one data item is selected], “a second arithmetic logic unit of a microarchitecture of a processor” [to perform aforementioned executing and outputting], “a second register of the microarchitecture” [from which the aforementioned input distribution data is selected], Examiner submits that arithmetic logic units, registers, microarchitecture, and a processor are generic computer components that are part of a generic computer and/or a computer environment. Examiner notes that performing a mental process on a generic computer, performing a mental process in a computer environment, and using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is still an abstract idea.
Regarding Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In other words, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the remaining recited limitations “a first arithmetic logic unit of a microarchitecture of a processor” [to perform aforementioned executing and outputting], “a first register of the microarchitecture” [from which the aforementioned at least one data item is selected], “a second arithmetic logic unit of a microarchitecture of a processor” [to perform aforementioned executing and outputting], “a second register of the microarchitecture” [from which the aforementioned input distribution data is selected], Examiner submits that these elements are recited at a high level of generality and submits that arithmetic logic units, registers, microarchitecture, and a processor are well-known generic computer components that are part of a generic computer and/or a computer environment. Examiner notes that merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner further submits that the aforementioned use of registers from which input data is selected merely reflects insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., data gathering). The aforementioned additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Regarding Eligibility Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. In other words, the claim does not recite additional elements that, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Regarding the remaining recited limitations “a first arithmetic logic unit of a microarchitecture of a processor” [to perform aforementioned executing and outputting], “a first register of the microarchitecture” [from which the aforementioned at least one data item is selected], “a second arithmetic logic unit of a microarchitecture of a processor” [to perform aforementioned executing and outputting], “a second register of the microarchitecture” [from which the aforementioned input distribution data is selected], Examiner notes that merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, are not enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Examiner also notes that the courts have recognized retrieving information in memory, as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 3-15 do not add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the independent claim. For example, claim 3 entails something causing the arithmetic operations to occur; Examiner submits that the human mind performs mental processes in response to some form of catalyst; as such, claim 3 does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 3 further effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself Claim 4 effectively entails a memory unit storing data and addresses; however, as noted above, the courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, claim 4 does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 5 effectively limits the previously recited data to be specific types of data, and elaborates on the previously addressed arithmetic operation that is being performed on that data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, claim 6 effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, claim 7 effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, claim 8 effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, claim 9 effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, claim 10 effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, claim 11 effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, claim 12 effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, claim 13 effectively limits previously recited data, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 14 effectively entails storing results to memory or transmitting results; however, as noted above, the courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory, as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 15 merely limits the aforementioned arithmetic operation to particular types, and therefore does not recite additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 18, 20-22, and 31 are not patent eligible for analogous reasons as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 3-5, and 14 above. Claim 33 is not patent eligible for analogous reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 11 argues: “FIG. 20 is objected to because of a margin issue that caused a portion of the drawing to be cut off and therefore incomplete. Applicant has amended the drawings and attached the drawings herewith. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the objection.”
In view of the aforementioned amended drawings, the previously presented objection to the drawings is withdrawn. However, the amended drawings do not appear to have satisfactory reproduction characteristics — see the drawings section above.
Applicant on page 11 argues: “Claims 18, 20-22, and 31 are objected to because of alleged, various informalities. Applicant has amended claim 18 based on the Office's suggestions. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the objection.”
In view of the aforementioned amendment, the previously presented objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 15 argues: ‘Additionally, examples herein include specialized hardware to perform the above features. For example, claim 1 recites specialized hardware including "a first arithmetic logic unit of a microarchitecture of a processor," "a first register of the microarchitecture," and "a second arithmetic logic unit of the microarchitecture."’
However, Examiner submits that an arithmetic logic unit, a microarchitecture, a processor, and a register are all generic computer components that are part of a generic computer and/or a computer environment. To any extent to which Applicant’s particular arithmetic logic unit, microarchitecture, processor, and register are specialized, the claims do not recite details of the aforementioned components that reflect such specialization. Examiner recommends reciting details of the aforementioned components that reflect such specialization.
Applicant on page 17 argues: “specification is to be consulted to determine whether the invention improves technology. The relevant section of the Memorandum is reproduced below … As clearly noted above, the specification includes an improvement to technology.”
However, MPEP 2106.05(a) conveys that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, and as noted above, the portions of the claim that are not directed to the abstract idea itself merely appear to be generic computer components. Examiner recommends reciting details of the recited components that reflect such specialization.
Applicant on page 17 argues: “Thus, claim 1 improves existing computer designs to implement new functionality. As such, the claims are integrated into a practical application.”
However, Examiner submits that an arithmetic logic unit, a microarchitecture, a processor, and a register are all generic computer components that are part of a generic computer and/or a computer environment, and therefore do not reflect an improvement to existing computer designs. Examiner recommends reciting details of the recited components that reflect such specialization.
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 KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at (571)270-3995. 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.
/KEITH E VICARY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights