DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 10 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 10 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 1 recites “A(Currently Amended) n inverse estimation-based radius…”, but it is recommended the phrase is amended to recite (Currently Amended) An inverse estimation-based radius...” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, lines 1 - 2 recites “A computer-readable storage medium characterized in that the storage medium stores a computer program”. However, it is recommended the phrase recites “A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 1 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the claim 1 recites limitations of “wherein the value of r is calculated by using the following formula…” and “a ferromagnetic target detection radius calculation step: calculating the ferromagnetic target detection radius R according to the following formula…” These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the limitations, as drafted, each recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite “a data acquisition step: respectfully acquiring values of a model detection radius…” The claimed limitation is recited to amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§ 2106.05(g)(3)). The claimed limitation recites obtaining values to perform the mathematical calculations.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant solution activity (data gathering) that provides data to perform the judicial exceptions.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained above, the additional elements recite extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and storing data (see MPEP§ 2106.05(g)(3)).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent merely amounts to data gathering, as the additional elements are acquiring data to perform mathematical calculations, which does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 5, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 5 claims a system so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the claim 1 recites limitations of “wherein the value of r is calculated by using the following formula…” and “a ferromagnetic target detection radius calculation step: calculating the ferromagnetic target detection radius R according to the following formula…” These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the limitations, as drafted, each recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite “a data acquisition step: respectfully acquiring values of a model detection radius…” The claimed limitation is recited to amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§ 2106.05(g)(3)). The claimed limitation recites obtaining values to perform the mathematical calculations. In addition, the claim recites a data acquisition module and a ferromagnetic target detection radius calculation module. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations reciting the modules only presents additional elements that merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant solution activity (data gathering) that provides data to perform the judicial exceptions, along with presenting additional elements that merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as explained above, the additional elements recite extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and storing data (see MPEP§ 2106.05(g)(3)) and presenting additional elements that merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent merely amounts to data gathering, as the additional elements are acquiring data to perform mathematical calculations, and presents additional elements that merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to mathematical concepts, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to mathematical concepts above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 2 recites an additional mathematical calculation being performed. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claims 2 and ultimately claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to mathematical concepts, due to its dependence on claims 1 and 2, recited as being directed to mathematical concepts above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 3 recites a description of the data used in the mathematical concepts. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 4, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to mathematical concepts, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to mathematical concepts above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 4 recites a description of the data used in the mathematical concepts. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 6, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 5, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to mathematical concepts, due to its dependence on claim 5, recited as being directed to mathematical concepts above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 6 recites an additional mathematical calculation being performed. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 7, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claims 6 and ultimately claim 5, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to mathematical concepts, due to its dependence on claims 5 and 6, recited as being directed to mathematical concepts above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 7 recites a description of the data used in the mathematical concepts. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 8, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 5, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to mathematical concepts, due to its dependence on claim 5, recited as being directed to mathematical concepts above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 8 recites a description of the data used in the mathematical concepts. The limitations do not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 9, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to mathematical concepts, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to mathematical concepts above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 9 merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The recitation of a device comprising a processor and memory to perform the judicial exception above does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 10, the limitations recited, as an ordered combination with claim 1, falls under the abstract idea as being directed to mathematical concepts, due to its dependence on claim 1, recited as being directed to mathematical concepts above, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Individually, claim 10 merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The recitation of a computer readable storage medium executed a processor and memory to perform the judicial exception above does not provide any elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 10, it is being rejected in view of the OG Notice on Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media posted on USPTO’s website on 01/28/2010, and in reference to 2106.03 II of the MPEP. It is being reproduced partially below to maintain a clear record:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations, in this case it is a computer-readable storage medium) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. The specification does not appear to provide a definition of the computer readable medium that would limit the media as being non-transitory only, and leaves the definition open to also cover other types of propagating signals or data carrier waves. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. {[]}
It is recommended that the computer readable medium recited in claim 10 is amended to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a data acquisition module, configured to perform and a ferromagnetic target detection radius calculation module, configured to perform in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 - 8 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 limitations “a data acquisition module, configured to perform the following…” and “a ferromagnetic target detection radius calculation module, configured to perform the following…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. In particular, the specification does not disclose of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed functions above/ As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the claimed functions can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 6 - 8 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 5.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 - 8 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.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of removing noise from the appearance signals. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one or ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 6 - 8 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of Chen et al (CN113702903 A) discloses a target detected underwater using an electromagnetic station and target plane position coordinates, Shen (CN111913227 A) discloses a ferromagnetic object and sensor in inverse relation, a magnetic dipole, and Timmons et al (U.S. PG Pub 2019/0064114 A1) discloses identifying and locating object features with ferromagnetic material using a scanner.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Chen, Shen, and Timmons, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses for claim 1: A method and for claim 5: A system for ferromagnetic target detection, including the steps of values for calculating a model detection radius, including values associated with the ferromagnetic target, scale model, values associated with the distance and height of an unmanned aerial vehicle, and using the values obtained to perform a calculation to obtain a ferromagnetic target detection radius, based on:
PNG
media_image1.png
112
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 4 and 6 - 10 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claims 1 and 5, allowable base claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
March 6, 2026