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
Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-18 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-2, 4-18 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.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1, 9 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 9, 17, 18 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-18 are directed to selecting between alternative processing techniques. Specifically, the claims recite determining, based on predetermined decision information, whether to perform a first process or a second process, and generating a processing determination result, wherein the first process includes processing a first sequence of bits or symbols with a first signal processing that uses an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, and generating a second sequence of bits or symbols resulting from the first signal processing, which is grouped within the Mathematical Concepts and is similar to the concept of (mathematical relationships OR mathematical formulas or equations OR mathematical calculations) OR Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as device and circuitry merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the device and circuitry perform(s) the steps or functions of based on the processing determination result: performing the first process and transmitting the second sequence of bits to the reception device; or performing the second process and transmitting the third sequence of bits or symbols to the reception device. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a device and circuitry to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of selecting between alternative processing techniques. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the device and circuitry perform(s) the steps or functions of based on the processing determination result: performing the first process and transmitting the second sequence of bits to the reception device; or performing the second process and transmitting the third sequence of bits or symbols to the reception device. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of selecting between alternative processing techniques. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10-16 further describe the abstract idea of selecting between alternative processing techniques. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (U.S. Patent App Pub 20210297178).
Regarding claim 1,
Kim teaches a transmission device comprising: a communication circuit configured for wired or wireless transmission and reception, and circuitry configured to performing processing that includes: (See paragraphs 158, 195, Kim)
determining, based on predetermined decision information, whether to perform a first process or a second process, and generating a processing determination result, (See figures 157-160, figures 14-15, Kim teaches determining whether to use AI or not in the processing)
wherein the first process includes processing a first sequence of bits or symbols with a first signal processing that uses an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, and generating a second sequence of bits or symbols resulting from the first signal processing, and (See paragraphs 160-163, figures 14-15, Kim teaches AI model to process the data)
wherein the second process includes processing the first sequence of bits or symbols with a second signal processing that does not use the AI/ML model, and generating a third sequence of bits or symbols resulting from the second signal processing, and (See paragraphs 160-163, figures 14-15, Kim teaches not using aI model to process data)
based on the processing determination result: performing the first process and transmitting the second sequence of bits to the reception device; or (See paragraphs 158-161, figures 14-15, Kim teaches a first process using AI and then transmitting the results)
performing the second process and transmitting the third sequence of bits or symbols to the reception device. (See paragraphs 158-161, figures 14-15, Kim teaches a second process not using AI and then transmitting the results)
Regarding claim 2,
Kim teaches the transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: transmit capability information of the first signal processing to the reception device via the communication circuit, (See paragraphs 142-146, figures 14-15, Kim teaches transmitting capability information)
wherein the capability information is used by the reception device to generate the decision information, and receive the decision information from the reception device via the communication circuit. (See paragraphs 142-146, figures 14-15, Kim teaches capability information use used to generate the decision)
Regarding claim 4,
Kim teaches the transmission device according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry is configured to: receive, via the communication circuit from the reception device, an explicit notification as the decision information. (See paragraphs 157-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches notifying of the decision to stop using ai)
Regarding claim 5,
Kim teaches the transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the decision information is based on a determination condition that is set in the transmission device in advance or dynamically. (See paragraphs 156-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches determination condition to use or not use AI)
Regarding claim 6,
Kim teaches the transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: specify control information included in a first control information table or a second control information table, (See paragraphs 156-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information table 1, table 2 )
wherein the first control information table and the second control information table include one or more pieces of indexed control information used by the circuitry during the first process or the second process, respectively; and use, for the first signal processing, the control information included in the first control information table when the first process is performed, and use, for the second signal processing, the control information included in the second control information table when the second process is performed. (See paragraphs 96-98, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information table)
Regarding claim 7,
Kim teaches the transmission device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to receive, via the communication circuit from the reception device, the decision information as an explicit notification as to which one of a first control information table or a second control information table is to be used by the circuitry during the first process or the second process, respectively, (See paragraphs 157-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches notifying of the decision to stop using ai)
wherein the first control information table and the second control information table include one or more pieces of indexed control information used by the circuitry during the first process or the second process, respectively, and wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine which one of the first control information table or the second control information table is to be used on a basis of the explicit notification. (See paragraphs 156-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information table 1, table 2 )
Regarding claim 8,
Kim teaches the transmission device according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry is further is configured to determine which one of a first control information table or a second control information table is to be used by the circuitry during the first process or the second process, respectively, on a basis of a determination condition set in advance or dynamically, (See paragraphs 156-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information and the determination )
wherein the first control information table and a second control information table include one or more pieces of indexed control information used by the circuitry during the first process or the second process, respectively. (See paragraphs 154-156, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information table 1, table 2 )
Regarding claim 9,
Kim teaches a reception device comprising: a communication circuit configured for wired or wireless transmission and reception; and circuitry configured to performing processing that includes: (See paragraphs 158, 195, Kim)
determining, based on predetermined decision information, whether to perform a first process or a second process, and generating a processing determination result, (See figures 157-160, figures 14-15, Kim teaches determining whether to use AI or not in the processing)
wherein the first process includes processing a first sequence of bits or symbols with a first signal processing that uses an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model, and restoring a second sequence of bits or symbols resulting from the first signal processing, and (See paragraphs 160-163, figures 14-15, Kim teaches AI model to process the data)
wherein the second process includes processing the first sequence of bits or symbols with a second signal processing that does not use the AI/ML model, and restoring a third sequence of bits or symbols resulting from the second signal processing, and (See paragraphs 160-163, figures 14-15, Kim teaches not using aI model to process data)
based on the processing determination result: receiving a first signal from a transmission device and performing the first process to restore the second sequence of bits; or (See paragraphs 158-161, figures 14-15, Kim teaches a first process using AI and then transmitting the results)
receiving a second signal from the transmission device and performing the second process to restore the third sequence of bits. (See paragraphs 158-161, figures 14-15, Kim teaches a second process not using AI and then transmitting the results)
Regarding claim 10,
Kim teaches the reception device according to claim 9, wherein the communication circuit is further configured to, and wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive capability information of the first signal processing via the communication circuit, (See paragraphs 142-146, figures 14-15, Kim teaches transmitting capability information) determine the process determination result on a basis of the capability information, and transmit the process determination result to the transmission device via the communication circuit. (See paragraphs 142-146, figures 14-15, Kim teaches capability information use used to generate the decision)
Regarding claim 11,
Kim teaches the reception device according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive capability information of the first signal processing via the communication circuit, and determine the process determination result on a basis of the capability information, and (See paragraphs 142-146, figures 14-15, Kim teaches transmitting capability information)
transmit the process determination result to the transmission device via the communication circuit. (See paragraphs 142-146, figures 14-15, Kim teaches capability information use used to generate the decision)
Regarding claim 12,
Kim teaches the reception device according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: determine the process determination result as an explicit notification, and transmit the explicit notification as the process determination result to the transmission device via the communication circuit. (See paragraphs 157-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches notifying of the decision to stop using ai)
Regarding claim 13,
Kim teaches the reception device according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: determine the process determination result on a basis of a determination condition set in the reception device in advance or dynamically. (See paragraphs 156-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches determination condition to use or not use AI)
Regarding claim 14,
Kim teaches the reception device according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: specify control information included in a first control information table or control information included in a second control information table, (See paragraphs 156-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information table 1, table 2 )
wherein the first control information table and the second control information table include one or more pieces of indexed control information used by the circuitry during the first process or the second process, respectively; and use, for the first signal processing, the control information included in the first control information table when the first process is performed, and use, for the second signal processing, the control information included in the second control information table when the second process is performed. (See paragraphs 96-98, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information table)
Regarding claim 15,
Kim teaches the reception device according to claim 9,
wherein the circuitry is configured to transmit, to the transmission device via the communication circuit, an explicit notification as to which one of a first control information table or a second control information table is to be used by the transmission device to generate the second sequence of bits or symbols or the third sequence of bits or symbols, respectively, (See paragraphs 157-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches notifying of the decision to stop using ai)
wherein the first control information table and the second control information table include one or more pieces of indexed control information used by the circuitry during the first process or the second process, respectively, and wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine which one of the first control information table or the second control information table is to be used by the transmission device on a basis of the explicit notification. (See paragraphs 156-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information table 1, table 2 )
Regarding claim 16,
Kim teaches the reception device according to claim 9,
wherein the circuitry is further is configured to determine which one of a first control information table or a second control information table is to be used by the transmission device to generate the second sequence of bits or symbols or the third sequence of bits or symbols, respectively on a basis of a determination condition set in advance or dynamically, (See paragraphs 156-158, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information and the determination )
wherein the first control information table and a second control information table include one or more pieces of indexed control information referred to by the circuitry during the first process or the second process, respectively. (See paragraphs 154-156, figures 14-15, Kim teaches control information table 1, table 2 )
Claim 17 list all the same elements of claim 1, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Claim 18 list all the same elements of claim 9, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 9 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of selecting between alternative processing techniques which is grouped within the Mathematical Concepts and is similar to the concept of (mathematical relationships OR mathematical formulas or equations OR mathematical calculations) OR Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to selecting between alternative processing techniques does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to device and circuitry perform(s) the steps or functions of based on the processing determination result: performing the first process and transmitting the second sequence of bits to the reception device; or performing the second process and transmitting the third sequence of bits or symbols to the reception device. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to selecting between alternative processing techniques does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to device and circuitry are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of selecting between alternative processing techniques. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Oetken, U.S. Patent 10803174, teaches techniques and architectures for representing data with one or more n-dimensional representations and/or using one or more models to identify threats associated with the one or more n-dimensional representations are described herein. For example, the techniques and architectures may determine one or more coordinates for one or more points based on one or more sets of bits in the data and generate an n-dimensional representation for the data based on the one or more points. The techniques and architectures may evaluate the n-dimensional representation with one or more machine-trained models to detect a threat associated with the data, such as malware or another threat.
2. Suresh, U.S. Patent 10530588, teaches an apparatus is provided which comprises: a first stage of physically unclonable function (PUF) circuits to receive an n-bit challenge, wherein the first stage of PUF circuits comprise a subset of ‘n’ PUF cells each of which is to generate an output bit; and a first stage of cipher blocks to receive the output bits from the subset of ‘n’ PUF cells, wherein the first stage of cipher blocks is to generate a plurality of bits.
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 NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444