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
The amendment filed 10/06/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1-3 and 5-25 have been amended, no have been canceled and added. Thus claims 1-25 remain pending in the application. However, new rejection under U.S.C. 35 § 112(b) is made based on the newly amended claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 (Step 2A Prong one) in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
…
The Office Action indicates that the limitations "calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component of a scattered field...," as drafted, recites a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), can be reasonably performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued in 2019 (hereinafter
referred to as the Revised Guidance) explicitly defines three groupings of subject matters that are considered as abstract ideas: 1) mathematical concept; 2) certain methods of organizing human activity; and 3) mental processes. Under Prong 2A analysis, the Examiner is required to determine whether the claims, when considered as a whole, recite limitations that fall within the subject matter idea groupings of abstract ideas (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes) (see e.g., Revised Guidance, pages 52 and 54).
Applicant respectfully submits amended claim 1 does not fall within any of the above groupings.
The present invention as claimed is not related to mathematical concepts or mental processes. Rather, the present invention as claimed in related to a computer aided electromagnetic (EM) field simulation, which is an eligible patentable subject matter under the Revised Guidance.
Specifically, for example, amended claim 1 does not recite any of the mathematical formula, a method of organizing human activities, or a mental process.
Rather, claim 1 is related to a method for computer aided electromagnetic (EM) field simulation. The method includes operations of obtaining statistics of a plurality of recorded scattered fields due to incident electromagnetic (EM) fields on a rough surface of an object; simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields; calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component of a scattered field for each of the plurality of scattered fields from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields, the coherent component and the incoherent component of the scattered field for each of the plurality of scattered fields being scattered from a plurality of sections of the rough surface due to an the excitation EM field incident on the rough surface at an incident direction; generating an aggregate scattered field based on the coherent components and the incoherent components of the plurality of scattered fields, the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction; and processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object. Such operations are not in mathematical concepts or mental processes as alleged by the Office Action. Applicant respectfully submits such operations cannot be practically performed by in human mind.
(see Response filed 10/06/2025 [pages 13-15]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
a. The claims do recite a mental process
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’).”
The limitation, “calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields …” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation merely recites calculating/computing values, deriving averages, determining deviations, and producing additional numerical results based on recorded scattered field data. All of these activities that can be reasonably performed mentally or with pen and paper. The limitation does not require a particular structure, device, or transformation of physical matter to perform the calculations. Instead, the limitation is drafted at a high level generality that covers performing mathematical evaluations of measured data. See, for example, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, the limitation is a “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
b. The claims do recite a mathematical concept.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas).”
The limitations clearly recite “calculating … based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields…” can be considered to represent mathematical concepts as described in the specification, for example, [0035]-[0037], [0041]-[0043] and [0077]-[0080] define the calculation of the coherent component and incoherent component as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Therefore, the claim limitation is a “mathematical concept”, similar to the comparison steps in
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A, prong one is maintained.
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 § U.S.C. 101 (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B) in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”:
Applicant argues:
The Revised Guidance states that if a claim has been determined eligible, the subject matter eligibility analysis should stop. However, if it is determined a claim recites an abstract idea, an Examiner is required to determine whether claims integrate the abstract idea into a "practical application." All elements individually and as a combination must be considered (e.g., regardless of whether they may be well-understood, routine, or conventional) in determining if a "practical application" of an abstract idea is being claimed (Revised Guidance, page 55).
As discussed above, the present invention as claimed is not directed to an abstract idea. Further patent eligibility analysis should stop. Even if, for the sake of argument, the present invention as claimed were somehow considered as directed to a judicial exception as an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits the present invention as claimed integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, for example, by the operations such as simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields; calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component of a scattered field for each of the plurality of scattered fields from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields, the coherent component and the incoherent component of the scattered field for each of the plurality of scattered fields being scattered from a plurality of sections of the rough surface due to an the excitation EM field incident on the rough surface at an incident direction; generating an aggregate scattered field based on the coherent components and the incoherent components of the plurality of scattered fields, the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction; and processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object. Thus, the present invention as claimed is not directed to an abstract idea.
According to the USPTO guidance, a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application "will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception". This includes situations where the claim improves "the functioning of a computer, or to another technology or technical field" (MPEP 2106.05 and the 2019 PEG).
The claims here include a simulation process with specific additional elements, for example, simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields; calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component of a scattered field for each of the plurality of scattered fields from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields, the coherent component and the incoherent component of the scattered field for each of the plurality of scattered fields being scattered from a plurality of sections of the rough surface due to an the excitation EM field incident on the rough surface at an incident direction; generating an aggregate scattered field based on the coherent components and the incoherent components of the plurality of scattered fields, the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction; and processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object. These limitations do not represent a generic implementation of an abstract idea, nor do they merely recite an instruction to "apply" the alleged exception. Rather, they recite specifics that define how to represent an imagery of the object based on coherently accumulating the aggregate scattered field. They represent a specific implementation of a technique. Because the claims apply the alleged exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation and is technologically specific, they integrate the exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and are therefore patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Under the Revised Guidance, claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when an additional element applies or uses 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. The limitations in claim 1 define a method of a method for computer aided EM field simulation including simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields; calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component of a scattered field for each of the plurality of scattered fields from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields, the coherent component and the incoherent component of the scattered field for each of the plurality of scattered fields being scattered from a plurality of sections of the rough surface due to an the excitation EM field incident on the rough surface at an incident direction; generating an aggregate scattered field based on the coherent components and the incoherent components of the plurality of scattered fields, the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction; and processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object. This is not a case where the claim merely states a result or an instruction to "apply" an abstract idea. The present claims recite a particular solution to a known technical problem. The Examiner's "apply it" characterization overgeneralizes the claim and fails to consider the actual limitations in the claim as a whole, contrary to the USPTO guidance. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.
For the reasons set forth above, the present invention as claimed is not directed to an abstract idea or a judicial exception because the claims include additional elements integrated into a practical application. Even if, for the sake of argument, amended claim 1 may be considered as directed to an abstract idea or a judicial exception, Applicant respectfully submits amended claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than just a judicial exception. Specifically, amended claim 1 includes specific operations to perform simulation for computer aided EM field simulation that is significantly more than just an abstract idea or a judicial exception. Applicant respectfully submits these operations of amended claim 1 include specific operations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, especially in the field of simulation for optical side-channel leakage analysis.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
(see Response filed 10/06/2025 [pages 15-17]).
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional limitations, “obtaining statistics of a plurality of recorded scattered fields due to incident electromagnetic (EM) fields on a rough surface of an object” and “processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object,” The limitations are mere recitation of insignificant extra-solution data input (i.e., receiving pre-processing operation data) activity and insignificant application (e.g., display SAR image based on the generated aggregate scattered field) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further, the following additional element – “computer aided electromagnetic (EM) field simulation” and “simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields” and “generating an aggregate scattered field based on coherent components and incoherent components of the plurality of scattered fields, the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction.” The limitation are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generic numerical simulation to simulate a projection of an excitation EM filed, and generic generation functions to generate aggregate scattered filed based on calculated coherent and incoherent components at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitations merely add generic data gathering, numerical simulation, data generation, and post-solution processing to the abstract idea. The additional limitations do not recite any improvement to computer technology, functioning of computer, imaging technology, or to another technology or technical field that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Instead, the additional limitations are describe at a high level of generality and reflect only generic computer functions and insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong two.
Under Step 2B, the additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional limitations merely describe using generic computer to perform data gathering, numerical simulation and data processing function as described in the specification through routine mathematical calculations and generic computer operations. The claim does not recites any specialized hardware, unconventional component, improved computer architecture, or any particular technological mechanism that performs the numerical simulation or data processing steps in an unconventional manner. Therefore, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of numerical modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B, and independent claims 1, 12 and 23, and dependent claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not
persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process and mathematical concepts), are not integrated judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25, in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made
in an Amendment,” pages 17-20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of
rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or
matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly applied reference Ji (“RADAR IMAGE OF ONE DIMENSION ROUGH SURFACE WITH BURIED OBJECT,” published in 2012) teaches the amended limitation “simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields” and “processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object.” Therefore, Tsang (“Electromagnetic Computation in Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves by Random Rough Surface and Dense Media in Microwave Remote Sensing of Land Surfaces,” published on Jan. 2013) in view of Ji (“RADAR IMAGE OF ONE DIMENSION ROUGH SURFACE WITH BURIED OBJECT,” published in 2012) teach claims 1, 12 and 23. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 12 and 23, and the claims dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in
public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12190025B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12190025B2 anticipates the limitations of claims 1, 12 and 23, respectively, of the instant Application.
Instant Application 17/687,300
U.S. Patent No. 12190025B2
1. A method for computer aided electromagnetic (EM) field simulation, comprising:
obtaining statistics of a plurality of recorded scattered fields due to incident electromagnetic (EM) fields on a rough surface of an object;
simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields;
calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields, the coherent component and the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields being scattered from a plurality of sections of the rough surface due to the excitation EM field incident on the rough surface at an incident direction;
Examiner Note: the U.S. patent ‘025 does not explicitly discloses obtaining statistics, but the calculation step due to the EM field incident on each of the projected ray-tube footprints based on statistical characteristics of surface roughness of the surface of the object; therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art understand that statistics of a plurality of recorded scattered fields due to incident electromagnetic (EM) fields on a rough surface of an object is obtained before the calculation steps. Further, the U.S. patent ‘025 discloses two separate calculations for coherent component and incoherent component; however, they are similarly disclosed in the instant application. Further, scattered from a plurality sections at an incident direction is inherently teaches from additional limitation of U.S patent ‘025, such as projected ray-tube footprints. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art understand that an excitation EM field incident at certain incident direction.
generating an aggregate scattered field based on the coherent components and the incoherent components of the plurality of scattered fields, the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction; and
processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object.
Examiner note: Coherently summing coherent and incoherent components to generate a statistically viable instance of the scattered field is narrower. Further, the additional limitation of U.S patent ‘025 inherently teaches “the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction.”
Therefore, the instant application is broader; U.S. patent ‘025 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 12 (system claim) - Mapping done in similar manner as claim 1 above.
Claim 23 (A non-transitory computer readable medium/article of manufacture) - Mapping done in similar manner as claim 1 above.
1. A method for computer aided electromagnetic field (EM) simulation, comprising:
simulating a projection of an EM field from a radiation source onto a surface of an object to form projected ray-tube footprints;
calculating a coherent component of a scattered field due to the EM field incident on each of the projected ray-tube footprints based on statistical characteristics of surface roughness of the surface of the object by generating a coherent scattered field based on a flat surface of the object assuming radiation from surface currents having a constant magnitude and a linear phase progression defined over a ray-tube footprint, and attenuating an amplitude of the coherent scattered field by an attenuation factor to obtain the coherent component of the scattered field, wherein the attenuation factor is a function of the statistical characteristics of the surface roughness;
calculating an incoherent component of the scattered field for each of the projected ray-tube footprints, the incoherent component being modulated by a random amplitude and a random phase based on the statistical characteristics of the surface roughness;
coherently summing the coherent component and the incoherent component for each of the projected ray-tube footprints to generate a statistically viable instance of the scattered field that includes total contributions from the coherent component and the incoherent component; and
processing the scattered field corresponding to each of the projected ray-tube footprints to represent an image of the object at an antenna based on coherently accumulating the scattered field over the projected ray-tube footprints.
Examiner note: underlined text indicates additional or different limitations present in the instant application and U.S. patent.
Claim 11 (system claim)
Claim 21 (A non-transitory computer readable medium/article of manufacture)
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.
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “… the plurality of sections of the rough surface of the object comprises the plurality of projected ray-tube footprints formed by a corresponding volumetric ray-tube projected onto the rough surface of the object, and wherein the corresponding volumetric ray-tube transports the excitation EM field from a radiation source to the rough surface of the object.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation (the plurality of projected ray-tube footprints) in the claim. Further, the element “a radiation source” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “a radiation source” refers to the “a radiation source” recited in claim 1 or a new radiation source. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “a radiation source” as the radiation source.
Claim 19 also recites elements “the plurality of projected ray-tube footprints” and “a radiation source”, they are rejected for the similar reasons.
The remaining claims 9 and 20 are dependent upon one of the claims listed above and rejected for the same reason.
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.
The claim(s) 1-25 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-11 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claims 12-22 are directed to system and fall within the statutory category of machine;
Yes, Claims 23-25 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component of a scattered field from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields, the coherent component and the incoherent component of the scattered field being scattered from a plurality of sections of the rough surface due to an excitation EM field incident on the rough surface at an incident direction,” as drafted, recites a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), can be reasonably performed in the human mind. A person, for example, is capable of observing and evaluating statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields to calculate a coherent component and an incoherent component of a scattered field from the rough surface based on mathematical equations (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under
Prong I step 2A.
In MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) recites: “There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Claim 1: The limitations of “calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields …” The limitation with broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) can be considered to represent mathematical concepts as described in the instance specification, [0035] - [0037]; for example, [0037]“In operation133, for each field observation point, a coherent component of the scattered field radiated by the equivalent PO currents is calculated. In one embodiment, the radiated field is the integral of the PO current density over the area of the projected ray-tube footprint, assuming constant magnitude and linear phase progression that depends on the incidence and scattering directions.” See also, [0077] – [0079] define the calculation of the coherent component as mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). For calculating an incoherent component: [0041],
PNG
media_image1.png
398
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; See also [0042]-[0043], [0080] define the calculation of the incoherent component as mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claims 12 and 23 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1, and are rejected for the
same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 23 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 12 and 23: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - "A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:” The limitations are mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
Further, the following additional element – “obtaining statistics of a plurality of recorded scattered fields due to incident electromagnetic (EM) fields on a rough surface of an object;” and “processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object,” The limitations are mere recitation of insignificant extra-solution data input (i.e., receiving pre-processing operation data) activity and insignificant application (e.g., display SAR image based on the generated aggregate scattered field) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Further, the following additional element – “computer aided electromagnetic (EM) field simulation” and “simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields” and “generating an aggregate scattered field based on coherent components and incoherent components of the plurality of scattered fields, the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction.” The limitation are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generic numerical simulation to simulate a projection of an excitation EM filed, and generic generation functions to generate aggregate scattered filed based on calculated coherent and incoherent components at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform the generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional limitations merely add generic data gathering, numerical simulation, data generation, and post-solution processing to the abstract idea. The additional limitations do not recite any improvement to computer technology, functioning of computer, imaging technology, or to another technology or technical field that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Instead, the additional limitations are describe at a high level of generality and reflect only generic computer functions and insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong two.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 12 and 23 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 12 and 23: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Further, The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); … ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); …; iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); …
The additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional limitations merely describe using generic computer to perform data gathering, numerical simulation and data processing function as described in the specification through routine mathematical calculations and generic computer operations. The claim does not recites any specialized hardware, unconventional component, improved computer architecture, or any particular technological mechanism that performs the numerical simulation or data processing steps in an unconventional manner. Therefore, the additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to no more than applying computer components to perform well-understood, routine and conventional functions in the field of numerical modeling, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 12 and 23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-22 and 24-25 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-11, 13-22 and 24-25 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 12 and 23.
Claim 2: Recites, “The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the coherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields comprises:
computing a geometrical optics (GO) approximation based on the excitation EM field incident on a section of the rough surface;
computing a physical optics (PO) approximation of equivalent surface currents induced on the section based on the GO approximation;
computing a radiated coherent field based on the PO approximation of equivalent surface currents with a constant magnitude and a linear phase progression across the section; and
modulating the radiated coherent field based on a mean of the plurality of recorded scattered fields associated with the incident direction of the excitation EM field for the section and the observation direction of each of the plurality of scattered fields to obtain the coherent component of each of the plurality of scattered fields.”
The limitation further defines calculating the coherent component of the scattered field including computing (i.e., mathematical calculation) GO, PO, radiated coherent field and mean of the plurality of recorded scattered fields; therefore, it merely mathematical concepts refers to claim 1. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3: Recites, “The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields comprises:
computing a magnitude of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields for a section of the rough surface based on a variance of the plurality of recorded scattered fields associated with the incident direction of the excitation EM field for the section and the observation direction for each of the plurality of scattered fields; and
modulating the magnitude of the incoherent component with a phase based on normalized fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields computed from the plurality of recorded scattered fields associated with the incident direction of the excitation EM field for the section and the observation direction to obtain the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields.”
The limitation further defines calculating the incoherent component of the scattered field including computing (i.e., mathematical calculation) magnitude, variance of the plurality of recorded scattered fields and a phase based on normalized incoherent fluctuations; therefore, it merely mathematical concepts refers to claim 1. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4: Recites, “The method of claim 1, wherein the statistics are computed from the plurality of recorded scattered fields due to the incident EM fields on the rough surface by operations comprising:
generating a plurality of instantiations of an explicit model to represent height fluctuations of the rough surface;
computing a plurality of bistatic field measurements as a function of a plurality of incident field polarizations and observed field polarizations across a plurality of incident field directions and observed field directions based on the plurality of instantiations of the explicit model;
computing a mean of the plurality of bistatic field measurements to model a magnitude of a coherent scattered field due to the incident EM fields, wherein the mean is computed for each of a plurality of combinations of the incident field polarizations, the observed field polarizations, the incident field directions, and the observed field directions;
computing a variance of the plurality of bistatic field measurements to model a magnitude of an incoherent scattered field due to the incident EM fields, wherein the variance is computed for each of the plurality of combinations of the incident field polarizations, the observed field polarizations, the incident field directions, and the observed field directions; and
computing normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field based on the bistatic field measurements to model a phase of the incoherent scattered field due to the incident EM fields, wherein the normalized fluctuations are computed for each of a plurality of combinations of the incident field directions and the observed field directions.”
The limitation further defines the obtained statistic (e.g., pre-process operation) including generating explicitly model implemented as a Gaussian random process (mathematical relationships involving stochastic functions by calculations), computing (i.e., mathematical calculations) bistatic field measurements, mean of bistatic field measurements, variance of bistatic field measurements and normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field; therefore, it merely mathematical concepts. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5: Recites, “The method of claim 4, wherein computing the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field for a given combination of an incident field direction and an observed field direction comprises:
subtracting the mean of the plurality of bistatic field measurements for the given combination of the incident field direction and the observed field direction from one of the bistatic field measurements to obtain zero-mean fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field; and
normalizing the zero-mean fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field by the variance of the plurality of bistatic field measurements for the given combination of the incident field direction and the observed field direction to obtain the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field for the given combination of the incident field direction and the observed field direction. ”
The limitation further defines computing the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field including subtracting and normalizing zero-mean fluctuations (i.e., mathematical calculations); therefore, it merely mathematical concepts. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6: Recites, “The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields comprises:
generating a plurality of randomly distributed complex numbers to represent a plurality of samples of the rough surface;
filtering the plurality of randomly distributed complex numbers by a filtering function to generate normalized fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields; and modulating a magnitude of the incoherent component for a section of the rough surface and the observation direction for each of the plurality of scattered fields with a phase based on the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields to obtain the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields for the section.”
The limitation further defines calculating the incoherent component including generating randomly distributed complex numbers (i.e., statistical/mathematical operation), filtering randomly distributed complex numbers by a filtering function (i.e., mathematical function) and modulating a magnitude (i.e., mathematical calculation – [0080], “modulates (i.e., multiplies))” ; therefore, it merely mathematical concepts. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7: Recites, “The method of claim 4, wherein the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field are correlated across a range of frequencies of the excitation EM field and across the plurality of incident field directions and observed field directions, and wherein a distribution of power of the incoherent scattered field for the plurality of sections are independent of a density of rays representing the excitation EM field incident on the rough surface of the object for the EM field simulation.”
The limitation further defines conditions of the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field is computed based on the bistatic field measurements; therefore, mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships) refers to claim 4. The limitation also defines excitation EM field incident on the rough surface of the object includes a distribution of power of the incoherent scattered field for the plurality of sections are independent of a density of rays for the EM field simulation; therefore, It is mere adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform simulation with a distribution of power of the incoherent scattered field at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8: Recites, “The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sections of the rough surface of the object comprises the plurality of projected ray-tube footprints formed by a corresponding volumetric ray-tube projected onto the rough surface of the object, and wherein the corresponding volumetric ray-tube transports the excitation EM field from a radiation source to the rough surface of the object.”
The limitation further defines sections of the rough surface of the object includes projected ray-tube footprints formed by volumetric ray-tube projected onto the rough surface of the object; therefore, It is mere adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform simulation with projected ray-tube footprints from radiation source at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9: Recites, “The method of claim 8, wherein calculating the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields comprises:
computing normalized fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields observed at a far-field hemisphere based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields;
selecting a center of a phase circle, wherein the phase circle represents a projection of the far-field hemisphere onto the rough surface;
translating the center of the phase circle to generate a translated phase circle to maintain correlations of the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields due to the excitation EM field at the incident direction;
selecting an ellipse centered at the translated phase circle, wherein the ellipse is selected based on a relative size of a projected ray-tube footprint to the rough surface used for obtaining the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered field; and
sampling the normalized fluctuations to correspond to a projection of the observation direction onto the ellipse to generate a phase of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields due to the excitation EM field on the projected ray-tube footprint.”
The limitation further defines calculating the incoherent component including computing normalized fluctuations (mathematical calculations), selecting a center of a phase circle represents a projection of the far-field hemisphere onto the rough surface (i.e., mathematical relationships defining spatial geometry); translating the center of the phase circle to generate a translated phase circle to maintain correlations of the normalized fluctuations (i.e., mathematical manipulation of coordinates to maintain correlation functions - mathematical relationships) based on selected center of a phase circle, selecting an ellipse centered at the translated phase circle (i.e., geometric selection based on mathematical functions and spatial relationships -- mathematical relationships) and sampling the normalized fluctuations to correspond to a projection of the observation direction onto the selected ellipse to generate a phase of the incoherent component (i.e., mathematical calculations of projection geometry and statistical input )”; therefore, it merely mathematical concepts. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10: Recites, “The method of claim 4, wherein the mean of the plurality of bistatic field measurements, the variance of the plurality of bistatic field measurements, and the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field comprise bidirectional scattering distribution functions (BSDFs) are used as lookup tables for calculating the coherent component and the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields observed at the observation direction.”
The limitation further defines the mean of the plurality of bistatic field measurements, the variance of the plurality of bistatic field measurements, and the normalized fluctuations (i.e., statistical calculations) for calculating the coherent component and the incoherent component (i.e., mathematical calculation); therefore, it merely mathematical concepts refer to claim 4. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11: Recites, “The method of claim 2, further comprising:
modulating a coherent component of the GO approximation for a section of the rough surface by the mean of the plurality of recorded scattered fields associated with the incident direction of the excitation EM field for the section and the observation direction for each of the plurality of scattered fields to generate modulated coherent component of the GO approximation; and
propagating the modulated coherent component of the GO approximation in accordance with a multi-bounce ray tracing model of a shooting and bouncing ray (SBR) framework.”
The limitation specifies modulating coherent component of the GO by the mean of recorded scattered fields ([0078], i.e.,. multiplies as mathematical calculation); therefore, it merely mathematical concepts. The limitation also specifies propagating the modulated coherent component of the GO approximation in accordance with a multi-bounce ray tracing model of a shooting and bouncing ray (SBR) framework; therefore, It merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform simulation to propagating the modulated coherent component at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim does not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 13-22 and 24-25 recite substantially the same elements as claims 2-11, and are rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set
forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 14, 15, 19, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Tsang (“Electromagnetic Computation in Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves by Random Rough Surface and Dense Media in Microwave Remote Sensing of Land Surfaces,” published on Jan. 2013) in view of Ji (“RADAR IMAGE OF ONE DIMENSION ROUGH SURFACE WITH BURIED OBJECT,” published in 2012).
Claim 1, Tsang teaches A method for computer aided electromagnetic (EM) field simulation (Abstract, “…we review the electromagnetic full wave simulations that we have conducted for such problems. In volume scattering problems, one needs many densely packed scatterers in a random medium sample to simulate the physical solutions…”), comprising:
obtaining statistics of a plurality of recorded scattered fields due to incident electromagnetic (EM) fields on a rough surface of an object (Page.265, “We generate Nr realizations, and for each realization, we solve Maxwell’s equations. The coherent scattered field … is calculated by averaging over realizations…”; Examiner note: a POSITA would understand that generating Nr realizations means creating multiple versions of the rough surface of an object based on incident electromagnetic (EM) fields. For each realization, Maxwell’s equations are solved to calculate how the EM is scattered, and the scattered field results from each realization are averaged together to produce statistical information about overall the field behavior, and the EM scatted fields results from each realizations of the rough surface have to be recorded for further calculation; therefore, averaging process is interpreted as obtaining statistics of a plurality of recorded scattered fields due to incident electromagnetic (EM) fields on a rough surface of an object);
calculating a coherent component and an incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields from the rough surface based on the statistics of the plurality of recorded scattered fields, the coherent component and the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields being scattered from a plurality of sections of the rough surface due to the excitation EM field incident on the rough surface at an incident direction (page.257, “ … Consider a rough surface (Fig. 1) with height function z=f(x, y), which is a Gaussian random process …”; page.265, equations 3.26 and 3.27;
PNG
media_image2.png
582
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
;
Examiner note: a POSITA would understand that each realization of the rough surface corresponds to a separate scattered field produced when an incident electromagnetic field is applied at a defined incident direction. The statistical average of the scattered fields corresponds to the coherent components and the deviation of each individual scattered field from the average corresponds to the incoherent component. Because each scattered field has both an average part and a fluctuating part, the coherent component and the incoherent component are calculated for each scattered filed based on statistical information derived from the set of scattered fields. Further, different surface realizations is interpreted as different portions or sections of the rough surface, and the plurality of scattered fields originate from a plurality of surface sections under the applied incident electromagnetic field);
generating an aggregate scattered field based on coherent components and incoherent components of the plurality of scattered fields, the aggregate scattered field representing a field scattered from the object due to the excitation EM field observed at an observation direction
PNG
media_image3.png
696
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Examiner note: equation 3.36 defines the total (i.e., aggregate) bistatic scattering coefficients. It combines both the coherent (eq.3.34) and incoherent (eq. 3.35) by summing over realizations of the scattered fields as a total scattered filed includes both coherent component and incoherent component (see also, 3.26 and 3.27), and angular variables Θs and Φs interpreted as observation direction). A POSTIA would understand that each realization of the rough surface produces a separate scattered field when an EM field is applied. The scattered field can be mathematically decomposed into an average part, which corresponds to the coherent component, and a fluctuating part, which corresponds to the incoherent component. Because all realizations share the same statistical model for the rough surface, the coherent and incoherent components are defined with respect to the set of scattered fields produced across all realizations. The coherent component is obtained by averaging the scattered fields over the plurality of realizations, while the incoherent component for each scattered filed is obtain by computing the field’s deviation from the average, combining all coherent components and incoherent components to obtain the total scattering result corresponds to generating an aggregate scattered field based on coherent components and incoherent components of the plurality of scatted fields); and
However, Tsang fails to teach simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields and processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object.
Ji teaches simulating a projection of an excitation EM field from a radiation source onto the rough surface of the object for a plurality of scattered fields (Page.326, below equation 1(c), “ψinc denotes the incidence field.” below equation 2(b), “the tapered plane wave (examiner note: radiation source) ..., which can be expressed as … equation (3).” – Examiner note: the reference defines and simulates an incident electromagnetic excitation wave. Page. 325, 2.1. The Boundary Integral Equations, “The geometry of a 2-D cylinder buried in 1-D rough surface is shown in Figure 1. The rough surface described by z = f(x) separates the space into upper and down parts … ki and ks are the incidence and scatter direction vectors. Θi is the incidence angle and Θs is the scattering angle.” – Examiner note: the reference teaches incident wave is directed toward the rough surface and interacts with it as a projection of an excitation EM field … onto the rough surface of the object. See also equation (12)-(13) shows multiple scattered fields are generated by angle variation. Page.328, 2.3. The Back Projection Algorithm, “The scattered field data are available over fmin to fmax frequency band and Θ1 to Θ2 angle band …” page.329, Since radar data are measured at discrete frequencies and aspect angles, the integrals in Equation (15) can be approximated as summations. The radar image is then given by … equation (21)” – Examiner note: the reference teaches multiple scattered fields generated by various frequencies and angles.) and processing the aggregate scattered field to represent an imagery of the object (Figs 2-4; Page.328, 2.3. The Back Projection Algorithm, “The scattered field data are available over fmin to fmax frequency band and Θ1 to Θ2 angle band … Then, a radar image of the target is obtained from … equation (15).” page.329, Since radar data are measured at discrete frequencies and aspect angles, the integrals in Equation (15) can be approximated as summations. The radar image is then given by … equation (21)”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsang to incorporate the teachings of Ji, and apply simulation of an excitation electromagnetic wave using a tapered plane wave radiation source in order to generate scattered electromagnetic fields over different frequencies and different angles to reconstruct an imagery of the object for imaging and detection. In this case, Tsang teaches obtaining coherent and incoherent scattered electromagnetic fields for rough surfaces by multiple realizations of the rough surface and solving Maxwell equations for each realization to statistically characterize the scattered fields. Ji teaches simulating an excitation electromagnetic field projected from a tapered plane wave on to a rough surface of an object to generate multiple scattered fields over frequency and angle to construct radar imagery of the object. The combination of teachings would provide benefit of improving the quality and realism of the final aggregate scattered field of the object.
Claim 3, Tsang further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields comprises:
computing a magnitude of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields for a section of the rough surface based on a variance of the plurality of recorded scattered fields associated with the incident direction of the excitation EM field for the section and the observation direction for each of the plurality of scattered fields (page.266, equation 3.31; examiner note: incoherent intensity as the variance of the total scattered field over realizations and left-hand of equation direct to the computed scalar quantity is interpreted as magnitude of the incoherent component); and
modulating the magnitude of the incoherent component with a phase based on normalized incoherent fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields computed from the plurality of recorded scattered fields associated with the incident direction of the excitation EM field for the section and the observation direction of the scattered field to obtain the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields. (page. 265, equation 3.27 as zero-mean incoherent fluctuations, then using equation 3.31 to calculate variance (i.e., magnitude) is interpreted as modulating the magnitude of the incoherent component with a phase based on normalized incoherent fluctuations computed from the plurality of recorded scattered fields associated with the incident direction of the excitation EM field for the section and the observation direction of the scattered field to obtain the incoherent component of the scattered field).
Claim 4, Tsang further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the statistics are computed from the plurality of recorded scattered fields due to the incident EM fields on the rough surface by operations comprising:
generating a plurality of instantiations of an explicit model to represent height fluctuations of the rough surface (page. 265, “We generate Nr realizations, and for each realization, we solve Maxwell’s equations; examiner note: a POSITA would understand that it generates multiple surface height profiles (i.e., a plurality of instantiations of an explicit model), consistent with stochastic modeling of z=f(x, y));
computing a plurality of bistatic field measurements as a function of a plurality of incident field polarizations and observed field polarizations across a plurality of incident field directions and observed field directions based on the plurality of instantiations of the explicit model (page. 266, equation 3.35; examiner note: the equation depends on both incident and scattered directions and polarizations, and is computed per realization);
computing a mean of the plurality of bistatic field measurements to model a magnitude of a coherent scattered field due to the incident EM fields, wherein the mean is computed for each of a plurality of combinations of the incident field polarizations, the observed field polarizations, the incident field directions, and the observed field directions (page.265, equation 3.26; examiner note: ensemble average of scattered filed for the coherent field component; page. 266, equation 3.35 inside of absolutely value shows incident and scattered directions);
computing a variance of the plurality of bistatic field measurements to model a magnitude of an incoherent scattered field due to the incident EM fields, wherein the variance is computed for each of the plurality of combinations of the incident field polarizations, the observed field polarizations, the incident field directions, and the observed field directions (page.266, equation 3.28-3.31; examiner note: the equation 3.31 identifying the magnitude (variance) of incoherent scattering due to filed fluctuation; equation 3.35 inside of absolutely value shows incident and scattered directions); and
computing normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field based on the bistatic field measurements to model a phase of the incoherent scattered field due to the incident EM fields, wherein the normalized fluctuations are computed for each of a plurality of combinations of the incident field directions and the observed field directions (page.265, equation 3.27; examiner note: the equation defines the zero-mean fluctuation component of each realization (incoherent field); equation 3.31 as a normalization process to extract meaningful statistical phase and magnitude information; equation 3.35 inside of absolutely value shows incident and scattered directions).
Claim 8, Tsang further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sections of the rough surface of the object comprises a plurality of projected ray-tube footprints formed by a corresponding volumetric ray-tube projected onto the rough surface of the object, and wherein the corresponding volumetric ray-tube transports the excitation EM field from a radiation source to the rough surface of the object (page.261, “A. Rough Surface Scattering Formulation Consider the 3-D scattering problem of a tapered wave …, incident on a 2-D dielectric rough surface with profile z= f(x, y) and equation 3.1 defines volumetric field propagating toward the surface, which is functionally acts like a volumetric ray-tube. Page.263, right column, “The field interactions are divided into strong interactions, intermediate interactions, and weak interactions, as shown in Fig. 8. Strong interactions include self-interactions and near-field interactions. The strong interactions are sparse matrices, where the matrix elements are calculated exactly using direct MoM and stored in core memory. In intermediate interactions, the UV method and the PBTG method with 2-D nonuniform Chebyshev interpolations in horizontal directions are applied. Examiner note: blocks correspond to localized regions of field interaction based on distance and tapering is interpreted as projected ray-tube footprints;
PNG
media_image4.png
662
392
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
The elements of independent claims 12 and 23 are substantially the same as those of claims 1. Therefore, the elements of claims 12 and 23 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1. Further, the additional elements of claim 12 and 23, “A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations” (see Tsang, page.270, Section 4. “CPU and Memory:” disclosing processor and memory coupled to it).
The elements of dependent claims 14, 15, 19 and 25 are substantially the same as those of claims 3, 4 and 8. Therefore, the elements of claims 14, 15 and 19 and 25 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 3, 4 and 8.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 13, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang
and Ji as applied to claims 1, 12 and 23 above, and further in view of “Scattering from rough surfaces using the shooting and bouncing rays SBR technique and comparison with the method of moments solutions” by Marzougui, published on 1990.
Claim 2, Tsang further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the coherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields comprises:
modulatingcomponent of each of the plurality of scattered fields. (
PNG
media_image5.png
728
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
page.265, …averaging over realization… equation (3.26)).
However, Tsang and Ji fail to teach computing a geometrical optics (GO) approximation based on the excitation EM field incident on a section of the rough surface; computing a physical optics (PO) approximation of equivalent surface currents induced on the section based on the GO approximation; computing a radiated coherent field based on the PO approximation of equivalent surface currents with a constant magnitude and a linear phase progression across the section and the radiated coherent field.
Marzougui teaches computing a geometrical optics (GO) approximation based on the excitation EM field incident on a section of the rough surface (page. 1541;
PNG
media_image6.png
688
910
media_image6.png
Greyscale
);
computing a physical optics (PO) approximation of equivalent surface currents induced on the section based on the GO approximation (page.1541;
PNG
media_image7.png
388
922
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: the physical optics (PO) method is used to compute equivalent surface currents (magnetic current M) derived from the outgoing filed, which in turn was determined from geometric optics (GO));
computing a radiated coherent field based on the PO approximation of equivalent surface currents with a constant magnitude and a linear phase progression across the section and the radiated coherent field (page. 1541; equations 4 and 5 is radiated field resulting from the equivalent surface currents derived in the PO step, ‘ejk ’ represent a linear phase progression across the surface, and the magnitude is constant across each differential surface elements ‘ds’).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsang and Ji to incorporate the teachings of Marzougui, and apply the SBR-based physical optics ray tracking method in order to compute a radiated coherent field and integrated the geometrical optics interaction on a rough surface. In this case, Tsang teaches obtaining coherent and incoherent scattered electromagnetic fields for rough surfaces using Maxwell-based statistical simulation methods and ensemble averaging techniques. Ji teaches simulating an excitation electromagnetic field projected from a tapered plane wave on to a rough surface of an object to generate multiple scattered fields over frequency and angle to construct radar imagery of the object. Marzougui teaches generating the radiated coherent field from equivalent surface currents suing PO approximation based on GO ray tracing across a surface. It would provide benefit of improving modeling accuracy and physical realism.
Claim 11, Tsang further teaches The method of claim 2, further comprising:
modulating a coherent component of the GO approximation for a section of the rough surface by the mean of the plurality of recorded scattered fields associated with the incident direction of the excitation EM field for the section and the observation direction for each of the plurality of scattered fields to generate modulated coherent component of the GO approximation (see Tsang, page.265, equation 3.26); and
However, Tsang and Ji fail to teach propagating the modulated coherent component of the GO approximation in accordance with a multi-bounce ray tracing model of a shooting and bouncing ray (SBR) framework.
Marzougui teaches propagating the modulated coherent component of the GO approximation in accordance with a multi-bounce ray tracing model of a shooting and bouncing ray (SBR) framework (page.1540,
PNG
media_image8.png
258
636
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsang and Ji to incorporate the teachings of Marzougui, and apply the SBR-based physical optics ray tracking method in order to propagate a radiated coherent field using geometrical optics interaction on a rough surface. In this case, Tsang teaches obtaining coherent and incoherent scattered electromagnetic fields for rough surfaces using Maxwell-based statistical simulation methods and ensemble averaging techniques. Ji teaches simulating an excitation electromagnetic field projected from a tapered plane wave on to a rough surface of an object to generate multiple scattered fields over frequency and angle to construct radar imagery of the object. Marzougui teaches propagating a G) approximated coherent field through multiple bounces between surface irregularities using the SBR technique. generating the radiated coherent field from equivalent surface currents suing PO approximation based on GO ray tracing across a surface. It would provide benefit of improving the physical realism of the scattering model, and increase modeling accuracy.
The elements of dependent claims 13, 22 and 24 are substantially the same as those of claims 2 and 11. Therefore, the elements of claims 13, 22 and 24 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 2 and 11.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang and
Ji as applied to claims 1, 4, 12 and 15 above, and further in view of “Statistical distribution of field scattered by one-dimensional random slightly rough surfaces” by Dusséaux, published on Mar. 2006.
Claim 5, Tsang further teaches The method of claim 4, wherein computing the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field for a given combination of an incident field direction and an observed field direction comprises:
subtracting the mean of the plurality of bistatic field measurements for the given combination of the incident field direction and the observed field direction from one of the bistatic field measurements to obtain zero-mean fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field (page. 265, equation 3.27; examiner note: the equation direct subtraction of the mean from one of the biostatic measurement for zero-mean fluctuations); and
However, Tsang and Ji fail to teach normalizing the zero-mean fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field by the variance of the plurality of bistatic field measurements for the given combination of the incident field direction and the observed field direction to obtain the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field for the given combination of the incident field direction and the observed field direction.
Dusséaux teaches normalizing the zero-mean fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field by the variance of the plurality of bistatic field measurements for the given combination of the incident field direction and the observed field direction to obtain the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field for the given combination of the incident field direction and the observed field direction (abstract, “we show that the real part and the imaginary part of scattering amplitudes are uncorrelated Gaussian stochastic variables with zero mean values and unequal variances.” Page.229, 4.1, “From(13)and(14),we derive<ˆ C(γ)>=0. Consequently, the coherent density is zero. Moreover, after some extensive mathematical manipulations, we deduce the variances…(equations 15 and 16)”; 4.2, “Random quantities A=ˆ Cr(α) and B=ˆ Ci(α) are distributed normally with zero mean values and unequal variances r and s. Moreover, we show that they are uncorrelated. Consequently, they are independent and we can write: pAB(a,b)=pA(a)pB(b)= 1 2π√rs exp −a2 2r− b2 2s (18) where pAB(a,b) is the two-dimensional normal distribution of ˆ Cr(α)and ˆ Ci(α).Transforming to polar coordinates, A=M cos ψ; B=M sin ψ (19) we obtain the required distributions for the modulus M and the phase ψ: …”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsang and Ji to incorporate the teachings of Dusséaux, and apply the statistical modeling and Gaussian-based normalization methods in order to compute normalized incoherent fluctuations. In this case, Tsang teaches obtaining coherent and incoherent scattered electromagnetic fields for rough surfaces using Maxwell-based statistical simulation methods and ensemble averaging techniques. Ji teaches simulating an excitation electromagnetic field projected from a tapered plane wave on to a rough surface of an object to generate multiple scattered fields over frequency and angle to construct radar imagery of the object. Dusséaux teaches modeling the incoherent scattered filed as a zero-mean Gaussian random variable and deriving the variance of the scattered field components to support normalization of fluctuations across realizations. It would provide benefit of improving the precision of incoherent field phase modeling for a given incident and observation direction combination.
Claim 6, Tsang and Ji fail to teaches The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields comprises:
generating a plurality of randomly distributed complex numbers to represent a plurality of samples of the rough surface;
filtering the plurality of randomly distributed complex numbers by a filtering function to generate normalized fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields; and
modulating a magnitude of the incoherent component for a section of the rough surface and the observation direction for each of the plurality of scattered fields with a phase based on the normalized incoherent fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields to obtain the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields for the section.
Dusséaux teaches generating a plurality of randomly distributed complex numbers to represent a plurality of samples of the rough surface (page. 227, “The geometry of the problem is depicted in Fig. 1. The rough surface is represented in Cartesian coordinates by the equation y = a0(x) and consists of a small cylindrical random perturbation with length L and zero mean Figure 1: The slightly rough surface. (< a0(x) >= 0) in a perfectly conducting plane y = 0. Each realisation can be described by the following equation a0(x) = a(x)−m if |x|≤ L 2 a0(x) = 0 outside (1).” page.228, “a(x) is a random function assuming values distributed normally with zero mean and variance σ2a …”);
filtering the plurality of randomly distributed complex numbers by a filtering function to generate normalized fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields (page.229, “Random quantities A=ˆ Cr(α) and B=ˆ Ci(α) are distributed normally with zero mean values and unequal variances r and s. Moreover, we show that they are uncorrelated. Consequently, they are independent and we can write: pAB(a,b)=pA(a)pB(b)= 1 2π√rs exp −a2 2r− b2 2s (18) where pAB(a,b) is the two-dimensional normal distribution of ˆ Cr(α)and ˆ Ci(α).Transforming to polar coordinates, A=M cos ψ; B=M sin ψ (19).” Examiner note: the random components are decomposed into amplitude and phase trough a transformation as filtering operation)); and
modulating a magnitude of the incoherent component for a section of the rough surface and the observation direction for each of the plurality of scattered fields with a phase based on the normalized incoherent fluctuations of the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields to obtain the incoherent component for each of the plurality of scattered fields for the section (page.229, equations 19-21; examiner note: these questions show the magnitude and phase derived from the random scattered field components is interpreted as a magnitude of the incoherent component for a section of the rough surface and the observation direction of the scattered field with a phase based on the normalized incoherent fluctuations to obtain the incoherent component of the scattered field for the section).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsang and Ji to incorporate the teachings of Dusséaux, and apply the statistical modeling and Gaussian-based normalization methods in order to compute normalized incoherent fluctuations. In this case, Tsang teaches obtaining coherent and incoherent scattered electromagnetic fields for rough surfaces using Maxwell-based statistical simulation methods and ensemble averaging techniques. Ji teaches simulating an excitation electromagnetic field projected from a tapered plane wave on to a rough surface of an object to generate multiple scattered fields over frequency and angle to construct radar imagery of the object. Dusséaux teaches generating incoherent field components from a plurality of randomly distributed complex samples for a rough surface, filtering via statistical functions, and modeling the incoherent filed as a zero mean Gaussian process. It would provide benefit of improving the precision of incoherent field phase modeling for a given incident and observation direction combination.
Claim 7, Tsang further teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field are correlated across a range of frequencies of the excitation EM field and across the plurality of incident field directions and observed field directions (page.267, right column, “…The angular widths of coherent bistatic scattering coefficients become smaller with the increase of surface size. In the limit of infinite surface, the coherent bistatic scattering coefficients will approach Dirac delta functions in angular dependence. In Fig. 11, we show the convergence test with surface size for the bistatic coefficients of the incoherent waves. The bistatic scattering intensity of incoherent wave scales with area. Thus, the incoherent intensity divided by area should be independent of sample size. We compare the results of surface sizes of: … The results show convergence at … for this case.”), and wherein a distribution of power of the incoherent scattered field for the plurality of sections (page. 265-266, equations 3.26-3.27 and 3.31).
However, Tsang and Ji fail to teach independent of a density of rays.
Dusséaux teaches independent of a density of rays (page. 229, under equation 17, “We note that the incoherent intensity is not proportional to the surface power spectrum.” Examiner note: the incoherent scattered power does not depend on the input excitation ray density is interpreted as independent of a density of rays).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsang and Ji to incorporate the teachings of Dusséaux, and apply the statistical modeling and Gaussian-based normalization methods in order to support independence between the incoherent scattered filed power and the excitation ray density. In this case, Tsang teaches obtaining coherent and incoherent scattered electromagnetic fields for rough surfaces using Maxwell-based statistical simulation methods and ensemble averaging techniques. Ji teaches simulating an excitation electromagnetic field projected from a tapered plane wave on to a rough surface of an object to generate multiple scattered fields over frequency and angle to construct radar imagery of the object. Dusséaux teaches generating incoherent field components from a plurality of randomly distributed complex samples for a rough surface, filtering via statistical functions, and modeling the incoherent filed as a zero mean Gaussian process, and the incoherent intensity is not proportional to the surface power spectrum. It would provide benefit of increase modeling robustness across variable sampling densities.
The elements of dependent claims 16-18 are substantially the same as those of claims 5-7. Therefore, the elements of claims 16-18 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 5-7.
Claim(s) 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsang and
Ji as applied to claim 4 and 15 above, and further in view of “Modeling Custom Surface Roughness with LucidShape 2D Scatter Curve BSDF Material” by Bielawny, published on Feb. 2019.
Claim 10, Tsang further teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the mean of the plurality of bistatic field measurements, the variance of the plurality of bistatic field measurements, and the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field (see Tsang discussed mean, variance and normalized fluctuations in claim 4) comprise (see Tsang calculating the coherent component and the incoherent component of the scattered field observed at the observation direction in claim 1).
However, Tsang and Ji fail to teach bidirectional scattering distribution functions (BSDFs) are used as lookup tables.
Bielawny teaches bidirectional scattering distribution functions (BSDFs) are used as lookup tables (page.2, par.1, “Another way to define scattering is with a bidirectional scattering distribution function (BSDF), which calculates an outgoing ray from an incoming ray directly, according to a defined function of a measured data set (i.e., a look-up table). Par.2, “… This can be described as a statistical, single-interaction, micro-facet surface model using a statistically randomized normal distribution to set the surface normal at any micro-facet...”; page.4, par.1, “The resulting data can be used to create a formula for use in a light scatter perturbation BSDF model. The LucidShape 2D scatter curve model in theta mode uses the surface-normal perturbation curve. For single-interaction surface reflection, knowing the angle of the reflected ray and the angle of incidence allows us to calculate the surface slope for a specific pair of rays (in, out). This means that for surface scatter dominated by first-order reflection (a single-reflection event, not a multiple-reflection event), we may assume that the surface-normal distribution curve can be obtained from the average light spread curve directly…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsang and Ji to incorporate the teachings of Bielawny, and apply BSDF used as lookup tables in order to compute scattered field behavior under various configurations. In this case, Tsang teaches obtaining coherent and incoherent scattered electromagnetic fields for rough surfaces using Maxwell-based statistical simulation methods and ensemble averaging techniques. Ji teaches simulating an excitation electromagnetic field projected from a tapered plane wave on to a rough surface of an object to generate multiple scattered fields over frequency and angle to construct radar imagery of the object. Bielawny teaches defining surface scattering behavior using BSDFs derived from measured scattering data and implementing BSDFs as lookup tables. It would provide benefit of reducing computational complexity during real-time and iterative field analysis.
The elements of dependent claim 21 is substantially the same as those of claim 10. Therefore, the elements of claim 21 is rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35
U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In light of record taken as a whole, applicant's method claim 9 and apparatus claims 20 are considered to be patentable distinct over the prior art. In particular, the prior art does not disclose, teach or suggest in combination of computing normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field observed at a far-field hemisphere based on the statistics of the recorded scattered fields; selecting a center of a phase circle, wherein the phase circle represents a projection of the far-field hemisphere onto the rough surface; translating the center of the phase circle to generate a translated phase circle to maintain correlations of the normalized fluctuations of the incoherent scattered field due to the excitation EM field at the incident direction; selecting an ellipse centered at the translated phase circle, wherein the ellipse is selected based on a relative size of a projected ray-tube footprint to the rough surface used for obtaining the statistics of the recorded scattered field; and sampling the normalized fluctuations to correspond to a projection of the observation direction onto the ellipse to generate a phase of the incoherent component of the scattered field due to the excitation EM field on the projected ray-tube footprint, in the way disclosed in claims 9 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Depolarized Backscattering of Rough Surface by AIEM Model” by Yang, published on Nov. 2017, discloses a new expression for multiple scattering by including the upward and downward propagation waves in the medium 1 and medium 2. Unlike the single scattering, the multiple scattering accounts for the interactions, up to second order, among all the spectral components of surface roughness spectrum. Though the derivation is mathematically intricate, but yet manageable, the final expression is compact and easy for numerical implementation, which only involves a series of two-dimensional integration. Some of special cases in depolarized backscattering are also derived and compared with known analytical model to partly validate the update AIEM model. Then, extensive comparisons with numerical simulations and field measurements are conducted to illustrate the model accuracy. (covers claims 1, 4 and 5).
“Bistatic Specular Scattering from Rough Dielectric Surfaces” by De Roo, published on Feb. 1994, discloses An experimental investigation was conducted to determine the nature of bistatic scattering from rough dielectric surfaces at 10 GHz. This paper focusses specifically on the dependence of coherent and incoherent scattered fields on surface roughness for the specular direction. … A second-order solution is proposed which appears to partially address the deficiency of the Physical Optics model. (covers claims 4, 5, and 10).
“Scattering Characteristics of Targets above a Rough Surface in SAR Images” by B. Zhao, published in 2013, discloses the simulations to SAR images of targets above a finite rough surface have been investigated. The effect of rough surface on the target characteristics, or the coupling between the rough surface and targets, is analyzed in details by observing changes of locations and intensities of scattering centers in the SAR images.
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 YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. 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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights