DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to the claims effectively filed on January 20, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11, 16-17, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible.
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the art.
Response to Arguments Amendment
35 USC 101 Rejections: The Applicant’s arguments will be addressed as presented:
Regarding The Independent Claims
Step 2A, Prong 2: The Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because (1) the claim allegedly does not merely recite a judicial exception, and the claim allegedly is not directed to an abstract idea (2) the claims allegedly use measured physical properties that are used in equations; (3) the claims result in a task message sent to equipment and (4) the steps are allegedly more than apply it steps. In response to (1), the claim is still sufficiently broad to encompass scenarios run in simulation without there being any interaction with the real world. There is no explicit measurement of live data in the claim, and there is no recitation in the claims that any real action must be taken in response to data determinations. The claims are sufficiently broad to include war games people have used to test battle plans since long before computers existed. Also, there is nothing outside of the recited abstract ideas that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2. In response to (2), these is no indication that this is an active detection system. The claim does not specifically demonstrate that there is a live detection of data or even recite a sensor for measuring the data. For example, this could just be data collected from ISR equipment decades ago and currently being used for analysis/simulation. In response to (3), the claim does not technically deploy anything. The claim merely transfers information determined by the system to another system, potentially one in which a person in the loop does any actuation. This includes organizing human activity, which is not an additional limitation that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2. In response to (4), the Applicant states that the generating of a task message is more than an “apply it” step. On the contrary- one could appropriately argue that it is less than an apply it step. The Applicant criticizes the example of using scissors to cut hair after a hair design is made. At least in that example, there is cutting. In the Applicant’s claim, it is mere data transfer, which is an apply it step, just barely, and is also insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as demonstrated in the body of the Office Action. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The Applicant argues (1) the algorithm allegedly recites significantly more than the abstract idea (which includes the algorithm?); (2) parameters in the algorithm allegedly represent real-world determinations (3) generating a message is allegedly an element that provides significantly more than the abstract idea; (4) the claims allegedly send a message to a “selected” physical effector; (5) the WURC evidence provided allegedly does not demonstrate the conventionality of the abstract idea in combination with sending a message; (6) the claim allegedly recites identification by ISR; (7) concrete machine implementations are allegedly not human activities; and (8), read as a whole, the amended claims are allegedly directed to a specific technical solution because the claim allegedly controls physical devices.
In response to (1), the conventionality of the abstract idea is not at issue. It is whether the additional elements contribute to this unconventionality. The additional limitations, as demonstrated below, are not ones that provide significantly more. New math is not eligible subject matter, even if it is unconventional. In response to (2), the parameters of an equation are, by definition, elements of the abstract idea, regardless of whether they represent real world elements. Because they are elements of the abstract idea, they cannot provide additional limitations that combine with the abstract idea and other elements of the claim that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, because there is no real interaction with the technological space (e.g., the method could be performed entirely in simulation) of the claim at issue, the statement of data representing field specific metrics merely limits the abstract idea to a technological field and fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h). In response to (3), generating a message, under BRI, is akin to displaying information or providing a printout. These types of steps are “apply it” steps, insignificant extra-solution activity, and WURC under MPEP 2106.05(f), (g), and (d), respectively. In response to (4), no particular machine is recited as receiving the task message. A list is provided of the types of equipment that could receive it, but, as recited in the claims, the terms are sufficiently broad to encompass providing a command or advisory message to a human to act on any determination, if it is even outside of a simulation. In response to (5), again, the only element the Applicant has recited in the last paragraph on page 12 that is not part of the abstract idea is the message transmission which explicitly fails to confer eligibility in the MPEP without separate WURC evidence. The WURC evidence certainly supports transmitting a message or determination of what to do in response to a threat, but, even if it did not, the messaging step is per se WURC under MPEP 2106.05(f), (g), and (d). In response to (6), contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the claim does not recite identification by ISR. In response to (7), whether concrete machine implementations are characterizable as mental processes practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper is immaterial, as the claim fails to recite a concrete implementation of the additional limitations that does not qualify as an “apply it” step, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or WURC. In response to (8), the only thing the method does is provide data to equipment. The data does not necessarily control any action of the equipment for threat mitigation, other than to provide information, potentially for display to a human who would actuate any control actions. Therefore, the claims fail to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept, so the claims are ineligible at Step 2B.
Regarding claims 5 and 13
The organizing of data for better retrieval is recognized under Electric Power Group as insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC under MPEP 2106.05(g) and (d), respectively: MPEP 2106.05(g) “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” MPEP 2106.05(d) “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Accordingly, the terms of claims 5 and 13 do not confer eligibility.
Regarding claims 8 and 16
The Applicant argues that the use of data derived from measurements and providing data regarding tasks to a device integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. This could be true if the claims were so limited. However, the claim, under BRI, provides no current data measured from the environment in which a present threat may be occurring and no tangible action is taken in response, merely the transmission of a message that may do nothing more than inform the user of a device that data being analyzed (e.g., in simulation) indicates a threat. The directed energy deployment shows some promise as an element that could contribute to integration into a practical application (e.g., by beam steering), but it would likely have to be coupled with live measured data used in the determination indicating the threat, and not presented as an alternative to the radar deployment and transmission of interceptor data, to render the claim appropriately integrated.
Therefore: The rejections are maintained. The Applicant is encouraged to arrange an interview to better cultivate the claims for eligibility.
35 USC 102 and 103 rejections: The arguments and amendments have been considered and are persuasive. No art rejection is presented in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims recite, “where A is angle, R is range, T is time, and Q is error.” However, the specification does not support the breadth of these terms. For example, Atgt is defined in [0044] as target cross-sectional area. This is a component of the term A. A is not provided a qualitative label. In [0023], A is an exponential function of RCS (radar cross section), and RCS is an area. There is no qualification of what A is. The same applies to the claimed variable R, which is an exponential function of Rtgt (range to target). The specification does not provide support for the labels attributed to the variables in the claim or the scope that the labels represent. The Applicant is recommended to rely on [0022]-[0025] to amend the claims to recite that the cited variables are “input parameters” that are based on specified quantities. For example, “wherein A is a parameter that is a function of radar cross section.” The same applies to R and Q. The currently broad recitations go beyond the disclosure. The inventor cannot be said to have possession of all angles, ranges, and errors. However, there appears to be no definition of T or relationship that links T to a time component in the specification. Also, there is no relationship between the variable T and any of the recited time variables in the specification. For example, the specification mentions a dwell time, Tdwl (see [0023], [0058]), but no relationship is expressed between the T recited in equation 1 and Tdwl. The Applicant is invited to provide evidence to the contrary. This means that the equations in the independent claims are not adequately supported by the specification. This also means that the variables, as described in the claim, are new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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.
The independent claims recite “deploying the one or more effects, to mitigate the threat, with highest overall probability.” It is unclear how more than one effect can have the highest probability. Also, the claim is unclear as to the highest probability of what. It appears that this was intended to mean the highest probability of mitigating the identified threat, but the language of the claim must be clarified.
Claims 5 and 13 recite, “automatically applying corresponding tasking parameters,” but it is unclear in the terms of the claim to what the tasking parameters correspond.
Claims 8 and 16 recite, “deploying the directed energy device” and “deploying a radar effect,” which have insufficient antecedent basis. The independent claims recite, deploying the one or more effects… by… transmitting the task message to a selected interceptor, radar, cyber effect, or directed energy device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims that depend from the rejected claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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.
Independent Claims
Step 1
Claim 1 and its dependent claims are processes. Claim 9 and its dependent claims are machines. Claim 17 and its dependent claims are machines.
Step 2 – Prong 1
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites (Claim elements in bold italics, paragraph references are to Applicant’s specification):
perform operations for threat mitigation by probability normalization, the operations comprising: […] (Mental Process, Mathematical Calculation – Probability normalization is an evaluation, which can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator. The evaluation is a mental process. Further, probability normalization, in its broadest reasonable sense, includes scaling, which is a mathematical calculation, a mathematical concept. Further the method includes a number of calculations by the terms of the specification. See paragraphs [0020]-[0028] and [0034]-[0059])
identifying, by an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance component, existence of a threat; (Mental process – Identifying a threat is something a person can do in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator. The mind is, in the broadest reasonable sense, an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance component. Humans have had to sit in our caves and ponder identified threats, human and other animal alike, for much of our existence.)
for each (threat, effect) pair of the identified (threat, effect) pairs:
categorizing metrics of an algorithm, the algorithm indicating a probability of mitigating damage, by the effect, caused by the threat; (Evaluation – This is an evaluation that involves sorting data based on the data characteristics, which can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator. The evaluation is a mental process. . Further the method includes a number of calculations by the terms of the specification. NOTE: This step corresponds to step 224 of the specification, and paragraph [0020] states, “operations 224 and 226 for UT, MT, and LTP can include [parameters that include calculations].”)
generating a normalized algorithm for the identified (threat, effect) pair based on the metrics, wherein the normalized algorithm is of the form
P
k
=
A
×
R
×
T
×
Q
×
V
, where Pk is a probability of mitigating damage, and A, R,T,Q,V are input parameters quantifying physical characteristics of the effect and threat and A, R,T,Q, or V are set to one if a given identified (threat, effect) pair does not depend thereon, the normalized algorithm operating based on input parameters of same units as other normalized algorithms, where A is an angle, R is range, T is time, Q is error, and V is velocity; (Mental Process, Mathematical Calculation – generating an algorithm, in its broadest reasonable sense, is an evaluation, which can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator. The evaluation is a mental process. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, normalization includes scaling of data to a particular range, which is a mathematical operation, a mathematical concept. Also, evaluating an equation and its parameter values is a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept.)
operating generated normalized algorithms resulting in respective probabilities and corresponding confidence intervals; (Mental Process, Mathematical Calculation – Operating algorithms, normalized or otherwise, is an evaluation, which can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator. The evaluation is a mental process. Further, generation of probabilities and confidence intervals, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept. See paragraph [0029] describing Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo simulation is merely an example provided for the operating step, but it is a mathematical calculation.)
combining the probabilities and confidence intervals to provide an overall probability and corresponding overall confidence intervals of mitigating the threat of the identified (threat, effect) pairs using one or more of the identified effects of the identified (threat, effect) pairs; and (Mental Process, Mathematical Calculation – Combining the probabilities falls under “combining results of the algorithms” in paragraph [0009], which states, “the results of the algorithms can be easily combined, such as by addition.” Addition is an evaluation, which can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and/or a calculator. The evaluation is a mental process. Further, addition, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a mathematical calculation, which is a mathematical concept. Also, paragraph [0012] states “results of the algorithms to be combined with simple mathematical operations,” which would similarly be performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, or a calculator and would also qualify as mathematical calculations.)
Claim 17 recites mental processes and mathematical concepts, which are abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the method executed by the system of claim 17, so it recites an abstract idea for at least the same reasons as claim 17.
Claim 9 recites a CRM for conducting the methods of the system of claim 17, which is similar to or an example of the memory recited in claim 17. Therefore, claim 9 recites an abstract idea for at least the same reasons as claim 17.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 17 further recites the following additional limitations:
A system comprising:
processing circuitry;
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality. These fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Also, should it be found that the model and operations associated therewith are not abstract ideas, the model and associated operations thereof are recited at a high level of generality, so the model and training and/or inference methods thereof are also generic computing elements generically computing model parameters. In this scenario, the model and training methods are generic computing elements that, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
identifying (threat, effect) pairs for the threat;
In its broadest reasonable sense, this element is mere data gathering, pre-solution, extra-solution activity, which, under MPEP 2106.05(g) fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”)
deploying one or more of the effects to mitigate the threats with highest overall probability and based on the overall confidence intervals by automatically generating a machine-readable tasking message specifying platform, timing, and actuation parameters derived from A, R, T, and Q and transmitting the tasking message to a selected interceptor, radar, cyber effect, or directed energy device.
In its broadest sense, this is post-solution, extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display “ “Insignificant Application: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);” “Insignificant ) Therefore, under MPEP 2106.05(g), this limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
Also, should it be found that the categorizing step is other than an abstract idea, the categorizing step is mere information gathering, extra-solution pre-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP 2106.05(g) (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and”)
Also, the particular types of data merely limit and the specific purpose served merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under 2106.05(h).
Claim 17 fails to recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Claim 17 is directed to the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the method executed by the system of claim 17, so claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea for at least the same reasons as claim 17.
Claim 9 recites a CRM for conducting the methods of the system of claim 17, which is similar to or an example of the memory recited in claim 17. Therefore, claim 9 is directed to the abstract idea for at least the same reasons as claim 17.
Step 2B
Claim 17 recites the following additional limitations:
A system comprising:
processing circuitry;
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to
These are generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality. These fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Also, should it be found that the model and operations associated therewith are not abstract ideas, the model and associated operations thereof are recited at a high level of generality, so the model and training and/or inference methods thereof are also generic computing elements generically computing model parameters. In this scenario, the model and training methods are generic computing elements that, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
identifying (threat, effect) pairs for the threat;
In its broadest reasonable sense, this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (“WURC”). The feature is WURC for reasons similar to the following examples provided in 2106.05(d): “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”; “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)”; “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Because this limitation is WURC and is extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), the limitation fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
deploying one or more of the effects to mitigate the threat with highest overall probability and based on the overall confidence intervals by automatically generating a machine-readable tasking message specifying platform, timing, and actuation parameters derived from A, R, T, and Q and transmitting the tasking message to a selected interceptor, radar, cyber effect, or directed energy device.
This limitation, in its broadest sense, is assessing a threat and responding to mitigate the threat by transmitting information to a platform used by someone who can make a decision to address the threat (which is also organizing human activity). This is a standard approach in military threat assessment and response, so it is WURC.
For example, the Gilchrist reference from 1956 on the record discusses COUNTERMEASURES AND ANTIJAM CONSIDERATIONS FOR AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE GUIDANCE SYSTEMS. It discusses countermeasures to deploy in response to a missile threat.
Another example is the Department of the Army produced the ATP 5-19 in April 2014, which states on Page v, First Paragraph “The Army, as well as the other Services, has adopted the term risk management (RM) to align with joint terminology. The five steps of RM—identify the hazards, assess the hazards, develop controls and make risk decisions, implement controls, and supervise and evaluate—are used across the Services to help them operate as a joint force.” Page v, Third Paragraph “. The five steps of RM follow a logical sequence that correlates with the operations process activities (see introductory table-1). Steps 1 and 2 of RM normally have greatest emphasis in the planning activity. Step 3 normally begins in planning and continues throughout the preparing activity. The majority of step 4 normally occurs within the preparing and executing activities, with some continuing emphasis in planning. Step 5 normally occurs during executing with some continuing
emphasis in planning. The assessment activity of the operations process is continuous. While the depiction in introductory table-1 is in a bar format, both processes are cyclical, fluid, and dynamic. Activities and steps can overlap or be revisited during any operation.”
FURTHER WURC EXAMPLES: Steinberg reference of record, Abstract; The Law of War/Introduction To Rules of Engagement B130936 Student Handout reference, Rules of Engagement pages 13-23; The Cruz reference on record, Abstract; The Gilchrist reference on record, Abstract on Page 3; The Murray reference, Introduction on Page 95-3; Sinaika, Pages 113-1 – 113-6, describing an old system with similar parameters to the ones of the instant application.
Because the deploying step is WURC and extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), the deploying step fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Also, should it be found that the categorizing step is other than an abstract idea, the categorizing step is sorting information, which is WURC similar to the MPEP 2106.05(d) example: “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Because the categorizing step is WURC and extra-solution activity, under MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g), the categorizing step fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Also, the particular types of data merely limit and the specific purpose served merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use, which fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claim 17 fails to recite any additional limitations that combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 1 recites the method executed by the system of claim 17 with one less variable, so claim 1 is ineligible for at least the same reasons as claim 17.
Claim 9 recites a CRM for conducting the methods of the system of claim 17 with one less variable, which is similar to or an example of the memory recited in claim 17. Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible for at least the same reasons as claim 17.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2, 10, and 18
wherein identifying (threat, effect) pairs includes identifying only (threat, effect) pairs for which the effect has a non-zero probability of mitigating damage of the threat.
Excluding pairs that have non-zero probability is sorting data based on numerical values, which is an evaluation, a mental process. Also, this merely qualifies the type of data used in the mental processes and mathematical concepts of its respective independent claim. Therefore, this is an abstract idea that merges with the other abstract ideas of the claim and does not provide any additional limitations to confer eligibility under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B.
If it should be found otherwise, this limitation qualifies the data collected, which is an element of the identifying step and fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as the identifying step of the respective independent claims under 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g).
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are ineligible.
Claims 3, 11, and 19
wherein the threat includes a missile and the effects include an interceptor, radar, cyber effect, or directed energy device.
This merely qualifies the type of data used in the mental processes and mathematical concepts of its respective independent claim. Therefore, this is an abstract idea that merges with the other abstract ideas of the claim and does not provide any additional limitations to confer eligibility under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B.
If it should be found otherwise, this limitation qualifies the data collected, which is an element of the identifying step and fails to confer eligibility for at least the same reasons as the identiying step of the respective independent claims under 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g).
If it should be found otherwise, this limitation merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., military and threats thereof), which does not confer eligibility under 2106.05(h).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are ineligible.
Claims 4, 12, and 20
wherein operating the generated normalized algorithms includes performing a Monte Carlo simulation including each of the generated normalized algorithms.
This merely qualifies the manner in which the abstract idea of the respective independent claims is performed, so it is an element of the abstract idea. Therefore, this is an abstract idea that merges with the other abstract ideas of the claim and does not provide any additional limitations to confer eligibility under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B.
Should it be found otherwise, for example, that the Monte Carlo simulation or other elements of this limitations are not abstract, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality, such that they are generic computing elements (“Apply it”) and do not confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 4, 12, and 20
Claims 5 and 13
further comprising: storing the identified input parameters, generated normalized algorithms, probabilities, and confidence intervals in a database indexed by (threat, effect) pair; retrieving from the database, previously stored input parameters, normalized algorithms; probabilities, and confidence intervals, and automatically applying corresponding tasking parameters to reduce decision latency for a repeated scenario and refraining from re-generating the generated normalized algorithms.
The storing step and retrieving steps are merely storing and retrieving data based on a simple, content-based index. (see MPEP 2106.05(g) “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”; “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754;” “ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.”; and “i. Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937;”). The refraining step is merely discerning when to execute processes to generate and store data (see MPEP 2106.05(g) “i. Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937; ii. Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55; iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). Therefore, the additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under 2106.05(d), The storing step and querying step are merely storing and retrieving data based on a simple, content-based index. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) “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;”) The refraining step is merely discerning on what data to execute processes to generate and store data (see MPEP 2106.05(d) “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”). Therefore, the additional limitations are WURC.
The automatically qualifier is a generic computing component that represents generic automation and, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fails to confer eligibility.
The applying step that applies parameters is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper (as it would have been done in the references provided above), so it is an element of the abstract idea, not an additional limitation that can confer eligibility.
Because the additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application at Step 2A, Prong 2. Because the additional limitations are WURC and are insignificant extra-solution activity, they fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B
Claims 5 and 13 are ineligible.
Claims 6 and 14
further comprising identifying the input parameters, the input parameters quantify the metrics.
This merely qualifies the inputs to the mental processes/mathematical concepts of the respective independent claims and is, therefore, an element of the abstract idea that provides no additional limitations to confer eligibility.
Should it be found otherwise, this is mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the identifying step in the respective independent claims and fails to confer eligibility for the same reasons.
Claims 6 and 14 are ineligible.
Claims 7 and 15
wherein the metrics include probability of scenario success, monetary cost, collateral damage, attribution, minimum amount of supplies, minimum amount of personnel, probability of kill, probability of damage, probability of target, minimum bandwidth, or maximum communications latency.
This merely qualifies the inputs to the mental processes/mathematical concepts of the respective independent claims and is, therefore, an element of the abstract idea that provides no additional limitations to confer eligibility.
Should it be found otherwise, this is mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the identifying step in the respective independent claims and fails to confer eligibility for the same reasons.
If it should be found otherwise, this limitation merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., military and threats thereof), which does not confer eligibility under 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the claims provide no additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claims 7 and 15 are ineligible.
Claims 8 and 16
wherein the input parameters for a missile threat include time in track, track position error, track velocity error, closing velocity, acquisition range, and time of burnout.
This merely qualifies the inputs to the mental processes/mathematical concepts of the respective independent claims and is, therefore, an element of the abstract idea that provides no additional limitations to confer eligibility.
Should it be found otherwise, this limitation is mere data gathering and WURC as elements of the identifying step in the respective independent claims and fails to confer eligibility for the same reasons.
If it should be found otherwise, this limitation merely limits the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g., military and threats thereof), which does not confer eligibility under 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the claims provide no additional limitations that confer eligibility.
the machine-readable tasking message includes a launch time for an interceptor computed from the overall confidence intervals lower bound for R and an aimpoint derived from A and R, and is transmitted via a network interface to a command and control integration cell for execution; (This is mere data gathering transfer under MPEP 2106.05(g) and is WURC as demonstrated with the evidence above under MPEP 2106.05(d). Also this is an apply it step under MPEP 2106.05(f))
deploying the directed energy device comprises steering a beam to a target bearing derived from A, maintaining a dwell time equal to T on the target, and constraining off-boresight error Q below a threshold, thereby physically heating or disrupting the target; and (This does not specify that the deployment of the directed energy device is automated. Accordingly, under BRI, this is can include a human conducting the steps merely organizing human activity, which does not confer eligibility. Were these steps to be automated, this feature on its own, and not as presented as an alternative to the setting of launch parameters or deployment of radar effects, may be enough in conjunction with an additional detecting step that detects the data used in the method to integrate into a practical application, if there is sufficient support in the specification.)
deploying a radar effect comprises allocating beam dwell and selecting waveform parameters to achieve a signal-to-noise ratio at least equal to a threshold implied by the overall confidence interval, based on R and A. (This is mere data gathering transfer under MPEP 2106.05(g) and is WURC as demonstrated with the evidence above under MPEP 2106.05(d). Also this is an apply it step under MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claims 8 and 16 are ineligible.
Claims Allowable Over Prior Art
The claims recite,
generating a normalized algorithm for the identified (threat, effect) pair based on the metrics, wherein the normalized algorithm is of the form Pk=AxRxTxQ, where Pk is a probability of mitigating damage, and A, R, T, Q are input parameters quantifying physical characteristics of the effect and threat and A, R, T, or Q are set to one if a given identified (threat, effect) pair does not depend thereon, the normalized algorithm operating based on input parameters of same units as other normalized algorithms, where A is angle, R is range, T is time, Q is error;
[…]
by automatically generating a machine-readable tasking message specifying platform, timing, and actuation parameters derived from A, R, T, and Q and transmitting the tasking message to a selected interceptor, radar, cyber effect, or directed energy device.
Claim 17 includes an additional parameter, “V.”
Hershey et al. (US 20190188342) teaches determining probabilities of defeat based on normalized factors. These may consist of sub-probabilities that are each defined in terms of normalized parameters representing physical threat mitigation parameters. See Hershey [0021]-[0030], [0045]-[0054], and [0066]-[0069].
Pederson et al. (US 7,473,876 B1) teaches parameters that are considered when intercepting a missile. These include angles, velocities, ranges and errors. See Pederson Column 6, Lines 6-9 and Column 15, Line 57 – Column 16, Line 62. Please note that the number previously provided for the Pederson reference was incorrect and has been corrected herein and has been properly added to the record.
Blitzstein et al. (NPL: “Probability!”) teaches that conditional probabilities that do not affect a final probability distribution are treated as having a probability of one. See Blitzstein, Page 12, Third-Eighth Paragraphs.
The claim recites a specific combination of values of parameters in an equation for determining a probability of successful intercept of a particular threat effect pair and uses those same parameter values to generate actuation parameters for the effect. The combined cited references could not teach this combination of features without the use of impermissible hindsight. A further search was conducted and yielded no references to remedy this deficiency in the art. Therefore, the claims are allowable over the cited art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(From Prior Action)
US 20180038669 A1 to Hershey et al. (Teaches using algorithm normalization and probabilities in threat detection, including Monte Carlo simulation)
US 20170208084 A1 to Steelman et al. (Teaches a probability-based threat detection system)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay White whose telephone number is (571) 272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188