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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
satellite (3)
instantaneous Es/N0 ratio (4)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 – Please insert the word “and” between the last two claim elements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 1 recites, in the 1st and 2nd elements, “inserting a set of static parameters” and “inserting a set of dynamic parameters.” It is unclear as to where or how these parameters are being “inserted.”
Claim 1 recites, in the 1st element, “said set of static parameters comprising standard deviations for at least two Kalman filters” and “the sliding window for estimating the standard deviation of output samples.” It is unclear what the standard deviation of a Kalman filter would be. It is further unclear as to how the standard deviation of a Kalman filter could be considered “static” (standard deviation typically being a dynamic parameter), especially in light of the recitation of a sliding window for determining standard deviation which may or may not be used in determining the recited Kalman filter standard deviations.
Claim 1 recites, in the 1st element, “said set of static parameters comprising … the lag time measured from the beginning of the precipitation event.” It is unclear as to how this parameter could be considered a static parameter as it would vary situationally, which would appear to make it a dynamic parameter during performance of the method.
Claim 1 recites, in the 1st element, “the minimum value of the instantaneous Es/N0 ratio.” These terms lack antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites, in the 1st element, “the duration of the sliding window for estimating the standard deviation.” These terms lack antecedent basis. It is further unclear as to whether the term “the standard deviation” refers to the previously recited “standard deviations” or not; the Examiner believes it refers to a different standard deviation.
Claim 1 recites, in the 1st element, “the lag time measured from the beginning of the precipitation event.” These terms lack antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites, in the 1st element, “the threshold for the value of the estimated standard deviation.” These terms lack antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites, in the 5th element, “the instantaneous Es/N0 values.” This term lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites, in the 6th element, “sending said values to a first Kalman filter.” It is unclear as to which values are being referred to.
Claim 1 recites, in the 6th element, “the satellite.” This term lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites, in the 7th element, “sending said values to a second Kalman filter.” It is unclear as to which values are being referred to.
Claim 1 recites, in the 7th element, “different standard deviation values of the process noise.” This limitation is unclear in scope because no previous “standard deviation values of the process noise” were previously recited which makes it unclear what would be required for the standard deviation values to be considered “different.” To clarify, different from what?
Claim 1 recites, in the 10th element, “the measure of the total attenuation of the satellite signal by rain along the path.” These terms lack antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites, in the 10th element, “a univocal relationship analytically described by an algebraic equation with a non-explicit solution.” It is unclear as to how a relationship can be considered both “univocal” and to have a “non-explicit solution.”
Claim 4 recites the term “said satellite.” This term lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “the TRU” and “the unilateral power spectral density of the total additive white Gaussian noise.” These terms lack antecedent basis.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “the measurement noise caused by the tropospheric scintillation.” These terms lack antecedent basis.
Claim 11 recites the term “the deviations.” This term is unclear because it is not clear which deviations are being referred to and because Claim 1 appears to recite three different standard deviations while Claim 11 only further defines two standard deviations.
Claim 14 recites “average value, plus or minus a certain number of standard deviations.” This phrasing is unclear in scope because the comma leaves it uncertain whether or not the standard deviations modify the average value. The Examiner believes they do and suggests deleting the comma if this is the case.
Claim 14 recites the term “that given location,” which is unclear in scope because no locations were previously recited.
The dependent claims are rejected based on their dependence from Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for estimating rainfall intensity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the estimated rainfall intensity is not used in any manner to do anything.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited memory register amounts to the recitation of a general-purpose computer element for implementing the mathematical algorithm (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). The recited data gathering amounts to generic data gathering for the purpose of obtaining the data needed for implementing the mathematical algorithm and does not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Prior Art
The following references appear to be the closest prior art of record:
Giannetti et al., The NEFOCAST System for Detection and Estimation of Rainfall Fields by the Opportunistic Use of Broadcast Satellite Signals, ArXiv, 7.24.2019 – See Fig. 7 and associated text
PNG
media_image1.png
498
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Giannetti et al., The NEFOCAST System for Detection and Estimation of Rainfall Fields by the Opportunistic Use of Broadcast Satellite Signals, IEEE, June 2019 – See Fig. 7 and associated text
Giannetti et al., Real-Time Rain Rate Evaluation via Satellite Downlink Signal Attenuation Measurement, MDPI, 2017
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mishra et al., DEEP RAINRATE ESTIMATION FROM HIGHLY ATTENUATED DOWNLINK SIGNALS OF GROUND-BASED COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE TERMINALS, IEEE, 5.1.2020
Oluwayemisi et al., Rainfall Attenuation Measurement at Ota, a Tropical Location, IEEE, 2019
Wardah et al., WRF Model Input for Improved Radar Rainfall Estimates Using Kalman Filter, IEEE, 2014
US 20200132884 A1 – FORECASTING METHOD WITH MACHINE LEARNING
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-9PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857