DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. A response was filed in this application on 06/18/2026 after the non-final rejection of 05/12/2026. No claims were amended, cancelled or added in this latest submission by the Applicant. Thus, claims 1-10 are currently pending for reconsideration by the Examiner and are examined below. 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
2. The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive for at least the reasons outlined below.
With regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant first argues that the claims cannot be practically performed in the mind. The Applicant also contends that while the claims may involve math, the claims do not recite a mathematical concept e.g., the claims do not recite any equations or mathematical relationships.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the claim still merely recites a “reading out” operation. This could be performed by the human being in their mind using at most a piece of paper, pen and/or a peripheral device. While the claim does not explicitly recite mathematical equations, it nevertheless involves calculation operations, e.g. calculating the gain in the third limitation of claim 1 from the previously obtained readings of limitations one and two. These calculations could be carried out by said human being using equations and other mathematical formulas.
Staying with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant further alleges that even if the claims are found to recite an abstract idea (which the Applicant does
not concede), the claims recite an improvement to technology that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. For example, the Applicant argues that claimed technique facilitates improved coding efficiency as per para 78 of the as filed specification.
The Examiner again respectfully disagrees and argues that no improvement in technology is reflected in the currently recited claims. Any improvements recited in para 78 of the specification, as argued by the Applicant, are not part of the claim limitations at this time. The features upon which applicant relies (i.e., para 78) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner invites the Applicant to include any such limitations from para 78 of the specification (and elsewhere) into the claim language which might reflect the alleged improvement in technology.
In view of the aforementioned, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is sustained.
Double Patenting
3. The Applicant had filed an e-Terminal Disclaimer (e-TD) to overcome the double patenting rejections. This e-TD has since been approved; hence the double patenting rejection is now moot.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being nothing more than an abstract idea. As an example, analysis of claim 1, reveals that the core of this claim is a sequence of calculation and reading-out operations: reading out gain values, reading out interpolation information, obtaining new gain values based on non-linear interpolation. These are mathematical operations, algorithmic manipulations of audio data and control/decision steps. As such these individual elements represent algorithms or mental processes that can be expressed as mathematical formulas or procedural steps, which in turn can be accomplished by a human being using their mind and at most pen/paper. Hence, all these steps fall under the category of mental processes. These steps are drafted at a high level of generality without tying it to a specific technological improvement and the computing device recited herein can be a general-purpose computing device. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
recitation of an apparatus, memory, computer readable storage device, computer program product or general-purpose computing devices merely read to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using the specification. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generalized computer components to generate, extract, determine, and generate, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6, merely provide certain details of the calculations outlined above or outline more mathematical manipulations, such as reading gain slope or inclination values (claim 2), constraining gain values (claim 3), different/further constraints on gain values (claim 4), further calculations involving gain inclination values (claim 5) and using quadratic or cubic functions for calculations (claim 6) etc. These are all steps which themselves can also be accomplished by a human being with (at most) the aid of a pen/paper and hence also do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7-8, are method claims for the corresponding apparatus claims 1, 6 and hence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as outlined above. Claims 9-10, are computer readable medium (CRM) claims for the corresponding apparatus claims 1, 6 and hence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-10 are allowable over the prior art and would be in condition for allowance if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 outlined in this office action are overcome. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not describe the invention as outlined in claims 1-10. The Examiner shall outline more detailed reasons for allowance, as and when the Application proceeds to allowability.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yamanashi (U.S. Patent # 8352258 B2), Ashley (U.S. Patent # 8219408 B2). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
A shortened statutory period for replying 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.
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.
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. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights