DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation
“ according to the initial information obtained in step S2” should be change to “according to the initial information obtained in the step S2”
“ taking all sampled points one by one as starting points to construct triangles” should be change to “taking all the sampled points one by one as starting points to construct triangles”
“S5, newly adding a sampling point in the sub-frequency band with maximum interpolation error selected in step S4;” should be change to “S5, newly adding a sampling point in the sub-frequency band with the maximum interpolation error selected in the step S4”
“newly adding a sampling point in the sub-frequency band with maximum interpolation error selected in step S4” should be change to “newly adding a sampling point in the sub-frequency band with the maximum interpolation error selected in the step S4”. Appropriate correction is required.
“ in step S3” should be change to “ in the step S3”
“ in step S4” should be change to “ in the step S4”
“ in step S1” should be change to “ in the step S1”
“repeating step S3 to step S5” should be change to “repeating the step S3 to the step S5”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “an initial module, an estimation module, selecting module, sampling module (as cited in claims 9),” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function based on [0071] of current discloser PgPub, where it discloses such modules are functional steps and executed by processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitations:
" A single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement, comprising the following steps:
S1, setting the start frequency, the end frequency, and the total number of sampling points for sampling;
S2, sampling a plurality of points within a range of the start frequency and the end frequency as initial information;
S3, according to the initial information obtained in step S2, using the trapezoidal rule to estimate interpolation error of each sub-frequency band divided by known sampling points, using the trapezoidal rule to estimate the interpolation error specifically being:
……, .., calculating the corresponding area of the triangle, estimating interpolation errors of all the sub-frequency bands, N sampling points respectively constructing N−2 triangles for gain and phase, and a total of 2N−4 corresponding interpolation errors being provided;
Claim 2: “the total number of sampling points”;
Claim 3:” the initial information”;
Claim 4: “the corresponding sub-frequency band”;
Claim 6: “the midpoint of the long interval”
Claim 7: “the one-third point”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claims.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-9 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-8 fall within category of process; For example, each of claim 9 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863));
Regarding Claims 1-8
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of a single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following bold limitations:
1. A single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement, comprising the following steps:
S1, setting the start frequency, the end frequency, and the total number of sampling points for sampling;
S2, sampling a plurality of points within a range of the start frequency and the end frequency as initial information;
S3, according to the initial information obtained in step S2, using the trapezoidal rule to estimate interpolation error of each sub-frequency band divided by known sampling points, using the trapezoidal rule to estimate the interpolation error specifically being:for a sub-frequency band [fi, fi+1, fi+2] formed by any three consecutive sampling points, connecting sampling values of the sub-frequency band [fi, fi+1, fi+2] to form a triangle, an area of the triangle being nearly three times the interpolation error of the sub-frequency band, taking all sampled points one by one as starting points to construct triangles, calculating the corresponding area of the triangle, estimating interpolation errors of all the sub-frequency bands, N sampling points respectively constructing N−2 triangles for gain and phase, and a total of 2N−4 corresponding interpolation errors being provided;
S4, selecting the sub-frequency band with maximum interpolation error from the interpolation errors of all the sub-frequency bands estimated in step S3;
S5, newly adding a sampling point in the sub-frequency band with maximum interpolation error selected in step S4; and
S6, repeating step S3 to step S5 until the number of sampling points reaches the total number of sampling points set in step S1, and ending sampling..
The bold limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and/ or a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements . Therefore, the bold limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “sing the trapezoidal rule to estimate interpolation error of each sub-frequency band [..]; selecting the sub-frequency band with maximum interpolation error [..]; newly adding a sampling point in the sub-frequency band[..]; sampling points reaches the total number of sampling points[..] ” combination of a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and/ or a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements, see [0058]-[0064] of current application discloser .
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, only additional first element is “S1, setting the start frequency, the end frequency, and the total number of sampling points for sampling; S2, sampling a plurality of points within a range of the start frequency and the end frequency as initial information” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and or pre solution activity and /or field of use) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Step 2B
Claim1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-8 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples:
2. The single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement according to claim 1, wherein in step S1, the total number of sampling points is greater than or equal to 4.
3. The single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement according to claim 1, wherein in step S2, Ns points are sampled at equal intervals within the range of the start frequency and the end frequency as the initial information by using an iterative sampling method.
4. The single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement according to claim 1, wherein in step S4, selecting the sub-frequency band with maximum interpolation error from the estimated interpolation errors of all the sub-frequency bands specifically is: comparing all 2N-4 interpolation errors of the gain and the phase, selecting the maximum value, and determining the corresponding sub-frequency band [fi,fi+1,fi+2].
5. The single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement according to claim 1, wherein in step S5, the newly added sampling point is located in [fi,fi+1] of the sub-frequency band selected in step S4, or is located in [fi+1,fi+2] of the sub-frequency band selected in step S4.
6. The single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement according to claim 5, wherein the newly added sampling point is the midpoint of the long interval in [fi,fi+1] and [fi+1,fi+2].
7. The single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement according to claim 5, wherein the newly added sampling point is the one-third point or any equal diversion point at the long interval in [fi,fi+1] and [fi+1,fi+2].
8. The single-point sampling optimized method for frequency response measurement according to claim 1, wherein after step S6 is completed, if a new sampling point needs to be added, a new sampling point number Nm' is specified, and the process proceeds to step S3.
The bold limitations above represent extended only the abstract concepts and a combination of details of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and/ or a mental step because a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements . Therefore, the bold limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 contains language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koyanagi(US 2006/0190520) disclose PCM method, the analog signal is replaced with the digital signal by making an arithmetic operation based on the quantization characteristic at each timing of the sampling frequency, and the absolute amount of data are recorded at all the sampling points. On the contrary, in the .DELTA..SIGMA.-modulation method, a variation in the data for the immediately preceding data is only recorded, and no thinning or interpolation of information amount is made, unlike the PCM method, whereby the binary signal produced by quantization presents a characteristic quite close to analog characteristic. This invention further provides an analog filter comprising a first arithmetic operation section for performing moving average operation or convolution operation on individual .DELTA..SIGMA.-modulated discrete data to perform interpolation so that the envelope of the output waveform may be a symmetrical trapezoidal wave, and a second arithmetic operation section for performing moving average operation or convolution operation on individual discrete data of the symmetrical trapezoidal wave obtained in the first arithmetic operation section to perform interpolation, so that the envelope of the output waveform may be a quadratic curve wave passing the sample values of individual .DELTA..SIGMA.-modulated discrete data, wherein each of the first arithmetic operation section and the second arithmetic operation section has a circuit composed of a sample hold circuit of plural stages for holding a signal, and an adder for adding the input and output signals of the sample hold circuit of plural stages as one set of processing circuit, a plurality of sets of processing circuit being cascade connected, and the number of stages of the sample hold circuit of plural stages provided for the plurality of sets of processing circuit being different.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no prior art rejection over claims 1 and 9, however there are 101 and 112 rejections. Closets prior arts fail to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 9, e.g. “ sing the trapezoidal rule to estimate interpolation error of each sub-frequency band divided by known sampling points, using the trapezoidal rule to estimate the interpolation error specifically being :for a sub-frequency band [fi, fi+1, fi+2] formed by any three consecutive sampling points, connecting sampling values of the sub-frequency band [fi, fi+1, fi+2] to form a triangle, an area of the triangle being nearly three times the interpolation error of the sub-frequency band, taking all sampled points one by one as starting points to construct triangles, calculating the corresponding area of the triangle, estimating interpolation errors of all the sub-frequency bands, N sampling points respectively constructing N−2 triangles for gain and phase, and a total of 2N−4 corresponding interpolation errors being provided”.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights