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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 10/22/25 regarding rejected claims on pages 8-15 the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “the additional elements of claim 1 (i.e., the "signal-processing circuit" and step of "operating a spectrometer") clearly integrate any judicial exception into an improvement to the field of spectroscopy. Furthermore, we note that claim 1 clear reflects the disclosed improvement through the recitation of the operating spectrometer and the steps used to implement locality-sensitive hashing (as performed by the claimed signal-processing circuit).”
To the Examiner point of view, (consulted with 101 Help-TC2800 – Kimberly Kakalec), the amended claims with limitation “transforming, said adding, said calculating, said identifying, said retrieving, and said deriving are performed by a signal-processing circuit” still fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. That is the claims do not show how to transform, to add, to identify, to retrieve, and to derive. The claims invoke signal-processing circuit merely as a tool to perform an existing process and the claims do not support to improve signal-processing circuit capabilities or to improve an existing technology. In the other words, the signal-processing circuit is an additional element, but it is so generically recited and it doesn’t recite how the results are achieved, or an improvement to technology. Therefore, the claimed subject matter does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, are directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 1, 22, disclose transforming, with a locality-sensitive hash function, the measured spectrum into an integer hash value h, adding, to a candidate set of candidate spectra, template spectra stored in an h*h bin of a look-up table, calculating, based on each candidate spectrum in the candidate set, a measure that quantifies discrepancy between the measured spectrum and said each candidate spectrum, identifying, based on the measure, a best-match spectrum of the candidate spectra; retrieving, from the hth bin of the look-up table, a parameter set corresponding to the best-match spectrum; and deriving, based on the parameter set, one or more properties of the gas sample.
Claim 5 discloses performing calibration-free wavelength modulation spectroscopy.
Claim 6 discloses summing elements of the measured spectrum to obtain a sum; and truncating one or more least-significant digits of the sum.
Claim 7 discloses demodulating a spectroscopic signal with a local-oscillator signal … processing the in-phase signal and quadrature signal…
Claim 9 discloses transmitting the laser beam through the gas sample …
Claim 10 discloses demodulating a spectroscopic signal …
Claim 12 discloses frequency modulating a laser … transmitting the laser beam through the gas sample … photodetecting the laser beam …
Claim 14 discloses demodulating the spectroscopic signal …
Claim 16 discloses storing the look-up table in a memory …
Claim 17 discloses adding, to the candidate set …
Claim 18 discloses outputting the one or more properties of the gas sample.
Claim 19 discloses outputting one or more of a temperature …
5. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, will be addressed below according to the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines.
Step 1
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, recite a method or a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter.
Step 2A Prong One
Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
The limitations in claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 14-19, 22, “transforming, adding, calculating, identifying, retrieving, deriving, summing, demodulating, transmitting, photodetecting, storing, adding, outputting” would qualify as being the Judicial Exception. First, these limitations are deemed an Abstract idea as such can reasonably be considered a mathematical step. Second, this limitation can also be deemed an Abstract idea as the determination can be done by the mind (i.e., metal process).
Step 2A Prong Two
Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application?
The examiner finds that the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: signal-processing circuit.
The examiner finds that the additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of transforming, adding, calculating, identifying, retrieving, deriving, summing, demodulating, transmitting, photodetecting, storing, adding, outputting, are perform.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a signal-processing circuit or improves any other technology.
Step 2B
Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
Limitation “transforming, said adding, said calculating, said identifying, said retrieving, and said deriving are performed by a signal-processing circuit” still fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. That is the claims do not show how to transform, to add, to identify, to retrieve, and to derive. The claims invoke signal-processing circuit merely as a tool to perform an existing process and the claims do not support to improve signal-processing circuit capabilities or to improve an existing technology. In the other words, the signal-processing circuit is an additional element, but it is so generically recited and it doesn’t recite how the results are achieved, or an improvement to technology.
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In the other words, it appears that these identified elements could be considered an abstract idea (the determination can be done by the mind/human). Therefore, the claimed subject matter does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
The courts have decided: Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, abstract intellectual concepts, are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work (Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S.63, 175 USPQ 673.
(1972)). It is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements, such as a data input or detection step, does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Inti., 573
US,134S.Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ.2d 1976 (2014)). Subject matter eligibility examples with regard to Abstract Ideas are found at: http:/Awww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/abstract_idea_examples.paf.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-26 would be allowable if the rejection under 101 were overcome.
8. The allowable Subject matter was indicated in office Action mailed on 06/26/25.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
November 6, 2025
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877