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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 11/18/2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 on page 15-18 of Remarks, and asserted on page 15, “Amended claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A because the claim comprises an additional feature or a combination of features which demonstrates an improvement to the conventional digital signal processing in autonomous vehicle through automatically selecting a plurality of hyperparameter data used in a multidimensional partial Fourier transform, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(a).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because any arguably improvements, such as reducing the cost attributable to the hyperparameter search (see page 8 like 14-15), reduce computational cost (see page 8 line 26-27), reducing time cost (see page 9 line 6), and improving processing speed by up to 7.6 times (see page 9 line 12), are direct consequences of performing the abstract idea as recited in the claims or algorithms 1-2 on page 20-22. For example, page 8 line 12-15 describes the reducing of cost for hyperparameter search is by finding the optimal value of the divisor automatically using a convex optimization based algorithm, which is mathematical algorithm for finding optimal value, page 8 line 21-28 describes reducing computational cost by using a pre-computation technique through the multivariate polynomial approximation of trigonometric functions, decomposes a partial Fourier transform into small sub-blocks and approximates some trigonometric functions using Chebyshev polynomials (e.g., mathematical concepts), page 9 line 5-8 describes the reducing time cost by decomposing the computation of partial Fourier coefficient into matrix multiplication and the multidimensional fast Fourier transform of the small sub-blocks of input (e.g., mathematical concept). Therefore; any arguably improvements are the result of performing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a) states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
Applicant further asserted on page 20, “Applicant respectfully asserts that the improvement is provided by the additional element of "controlling navigation of the autonomous vehicle based on the approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, wherein the visual image data array of three or more dimensions represents inputs from the autonomous vehicle" in combination with the alleged abstract steps recited in amended claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the improvement is not provided by the additional element of controlling navigation of the autonomous vehicle based on the approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data in combination of the alleged abstract steps, but any arguably improvement is provided by the judicial exception alone as explained above. The step of controlling navigation of autonomous vehicle based on the approximated coefficient data is mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use, such as navigation of an autonomous vehicle (see at least 2106.05(h) states “the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed.” Similarly, the process of controlling navigation of the autonomous have no effect on how the calculating or approximating multidimensional Fourier coefficient data is performed.
Applicant further asserted on page 20-21, “This navigation control of the autonomous vehicle, disclosed in the specification, is now added in the claimed feature to make the claimed invention go beyond data collection and/or processing to have a direct and concrete application of the result of the data analysis, i.e, approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, wherein the visual image data array of three or more dimensions represents inputs from the autonomous vehicle. What the claimed invention, as amended, is about collecting specific sensory data (e.g., the visual image data array of three or more dimensions) and conducting specific data analysis on the collected data (e.g., approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitation of data array of three or more dimensions merely describes the data being used in the mathematical algorithm to generate the approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, and the limitation of controlling navigation of the autonomous vehicle and visual image data is mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception into a particular environment or field of use. For example, an application of voice recognition operates on audio data, or image processing operates on image data, where such audio data and image data are merely type of data being operated on.
Applicant further asserted on page 21, “In Diamond v. Diehr (450 U.S. 175, 187, 1981), the Supreme Court held that a process using a mathematical algorithm to control a rubber curing process was patent-eligible because it applied the algorithm to a specific technical purpose. Similarly, the invention in amended claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application for autonomous vehicle navigation by collecting data and using them for analyses in real-time navigation control of the vehicle (e.g., maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim of Diamond v. Diehr is different from the instant claim since the claim of Diamond v. Diehr recites additional elements, such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, in which the Court found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). However, the instant claim merely recites the additional elements, such as “controlling navigation of the autonomous vehicle based on the approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data”, as mere generally linking the use judicial exception into a field of use or technological environment (autonomous vehicle). In other words, the claim of Diamond v. Diehr explicitly recites non-abstract limitations to control a rubber curing process, thus it applied the algorithm to a specific technical purpose, but the instant claim merely uses the result generated by the abstract idea and generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, such as navigation of autonomous vehicle.
Applicant further asserted on page 21, “Because the additional element of “controlling navigation of the autonomous vehicle based on the approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, wherein the visual image data array of three or more dimensions represents inputs from the autonomous vehicle” in combination with the allegedly abstract steps recited in the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A, this renders the claim patent eligible.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the additional element “controlling navigation of the autonomous …” in combination of the allegedly abstract steps recited in the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two since the limitation of “controlling navigation of the autonomous” is mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use, and any arguably improvements are provided by the judicial exception alone, rather than the additional elements or combination of additional elements and the judicial exception.
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 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method for performing fast multidimensional partial Fourier transform
Under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites a method comprising: when the sizes of the multidimensional output area and the input array change, setting a plurality of hyperparameter data used in a multidimensional partial Fourier transform based on constraints on tolerance data and degree data of a polynomial for polynomial approximation, wherein the setting the plurality of hyperparameter data comprises automatically selecting the plurality of hyperparameter data using a convex optimization based algorithm; wherein the multidimensional output area is represented based on a center and radii of a multidimensional box expressed via a multidimensional matrix in a multidimensional space of three or more dimensions; when the sizes of the multidimensional output area and the input array change, finding Twiddle factors of the multidimensional partial Fourier transform whose oscillation is less than a reference value and decomposing the partial Fourier coefficients using the Twiddle factors into a multidimensional fast Fourier transform of sub-blocks of the input array and matrix multiplication, thereby approximating and processing multidimensional Fourier coefficient data of the multidimensional partial Fourier transform for the data array of three or more dimensions based on the plurality of hyperparameter data to output approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, wherein the setting the plurality of hyperparameter data comprises: setting multidimensional degree data using unconstrained convex optimization based on the constraints; setting multidimensional divisor data based on a size of an array adapted to store the multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, and the multidimensional degree data; setting multidimensional quotient data based on the size of the array adapted to store the multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, and the multidimensional divisor data; setting multidimensional range tensor data based on the size of the array adapted to store the multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, the multidimensional degree data, and the multidimensional quotient data; and setting optimal parenthesization data for an operation representing the multidimensional Fourier coefficient data using the multidimensional range tensor data, wherein the approximating and processing the multidimensional Fourier coefficient data comprises: generating a first tensor data by performing block decomposition on an array adapted to store the multidimensional Fourier coefficient data based on the multidimensional divisor data and the multidimensional quotient data; converting the first tensor data and the multidimensional range tensor data into a second tensor data by performing sequential tensor data product operations on the first tensor data and the multidimensional range tensor data based on the optimal parenthesization data; converting the second tensor data into a third tensor data by permuting the second tensor data based on the multidimensional degree data; converting the third tensor data into a fourth tensor data by applying a fast Fourier transform to the third tensor data; and performing a dot product operation on the fourth tensor data, to which the fast Fourier transform has been applied, based on the multidimensional divisor data and a multidimensional output area, and outputting an array in which the approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data has been stored. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least page 20-22 describes mathematical algorithms 1 and 2 to perform the step of setting the plurality of hyperparameter, approximating, and processing multidimensional Fourier coefficients based on the hyperparameters. Also see figures 4-8. See at least page 20-22 describes the computation phrase for steps S420 to S426 includes performing a tensor transform, block decomposition, sequential tensor product operations, permuting, applying FFT, and performing dot product operations. Also see algorithm 2 on page 22 and figures 4-5 and 8, and page 8 line 14-15 describes selecting using a convex optimization-based algorithm, which is a mathematical algorithm. Also see page 13 line 2-3 describes the comparing oscillations of twiddle factor with a reference value, page 9 line 5-8 describes the decomposing the computation of coefficients into matrix multiplication. Also see page 12 line 13-18 describes the multidimensional output area based on a center and radii of a multidimensional box as a matrix). Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim additionally recites a digital signal processing method, where the digital signal processing method being performed by a digital signal processing apparatus including at least one processor, a memory storing instructions, wherein the at least one processor execute the instructions to cause the digital signal processing apparatus to perform the operations. However, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of processing digital signal data and performing mathematical operations. The claim further recites “to improve a processing speed of the digital signal apparatus”, such limitation mere recited as a result of performing the abstract idea as recited in the claim. Moreover, the claim recites “for a visual image data array of three of more dimensions for real-time digital signal processing in autonomous vehicle” and “for controlling navigation of the autonomous vehicle based on the approximated multidimensional Fourier coefficient data, wherein the visual image data array of three or more dimensions represents inputs from the autonomous vehicle”, such limitations are recited at a high level of generality and at most considered as mere generally linking the use of the judicial exception into a technological environment or a field of use, such as navigation of autonomous vehicle based on processed image data. Furthermore, the claim recites a step of inputting the visual image data array of three or more dimensions and inputting sizes of a multidimensional output area and an input array related to the visual image data array of three or more dimensions, where such limitation is at most considered as insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering). Such element fails to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, as discussed with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements in the claim amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. The same conclusion is reached in step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept that is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception. The step of inputting data and input sizes is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) section (i), indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network, is well-understood, routing, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Thus, the additional element fails to ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2 and 4 further recite limitation of setting the plurality of hyperparameters. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least page 9 describes reconstruction of the constraint function based on the Chebyshev polynomial approximation, page 16-18 describes the approximating the constraint function to reconstruct the optimization problem into an unconstrained convex optimization problem and page 19 describes the unconstrainted convex optimization as problem 2 and algorithm 1 illustrates step of setting the hyperparameters through problem 2. Also see steps in figures 4 and 7). The claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 6 further recites limitation of approximating and computing the multidimensional Fourier coefficients. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (see at least page 20-22 describes the computation phrase for steps S420 to S426 includes performing a tensor transform, block decomposition, sequential tensor product operations, permuting, applying FFT, and performing dot product operations. Also see algorithm 2 on page 22 and figures 4-5 and 8). The claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 8 recites an apparatus claim that would practice the method of claim 1. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons. Under step 2A prong one, the claim further recites converting the data array of three or more dimensions into frequency domain by utilizing an energy compression property of the data array of three or more dimensions in the frequency domain, thereby outputting multidimensional Fourier coefficient for the data array of three or more dimensions, such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula (such as transforming time domain to frequency domain and outputting the Fourier coefficient data, which is a mathematical algorithm, and page 7 and figure 1 describes the energy compaction property of data merely as the property of the data being operated on, which is certain portion of data (e.g., the low frequency portion at the center) is non-zero coefficients, thus such portion should be operated on and the rest the area is mostly close to 0, which is unnecessary to operate on). Under step 2A prong two, claim 8 further recites the apparatus comprising an input interface and a communication interface, such limitations are recited at a high level of generality, e.g., computer components performing computer functions of receiving and transmitting data. Moreover, claim 8 recites the steps of receiving the data array of three or more dimensions and sizes of a multidimensional output area and an input array related to the data array of three or more dimensions, and transmitting the multidimensional Fourier coefficient data for the data array of three or more dimensions, such limitations are considered as insignificant extra/post solution activities under step 2A prong two (e.g., mere data gathering and outputting data) and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional under step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Such elements fail to provide a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer element. Thus, the additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, the claim is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 9 recites product claim having similar limitations as claims 1 and 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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 HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on (571) 272-3702. 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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182