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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to claims dated 1/12/2023.
Claims pending in the case: 1-3, 5-12
Claims cancelled: 4
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 12 in the relevant part read: “determine whether to use the partial echo data as learning data”. Based on the claim language, it is unclear what criteria is to be used for “determine whether to use” and what would indicate that the data is okay to use. It is also unclear what is to be learned and what criteria constitutes learning data. As such, a person of reasonable skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as grouping of data based on a criteria.
All claims dependent on this/these claim(s) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1 Analysis
According to the first part of the analysis, the instant case all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B Analysis
Independent Claim 12 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
estimate travel data of another ship based on the acquired echo data (Making an estimation based on acquired image information of echo data is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.);
determine whether to use partial echo data as learning data (Determining based on available information of echo data is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
processing circuitry configured to (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for applying a result of the abstract idea. The computer is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).):
acquire echo data generated by a radar configured to receive a reflection wave of a radio wave transmitted around a ship (This is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending, receiving, storing and retrieving information is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data and iv. Storing and retrieving information and MPEP 2106.05(g), example iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions),
…by implementing a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained on echo data as input data and travel data from the other ship as teaching data (This high level recitation of training and using the machine learning model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).) and the travel data comprises at least one of a heading, course, traveling speed, ship length, or identification signal of the other ship (This appears to be directed to the specification of data and a restriction to a particular type of source data. This is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).), and
… learning data for training the machine learning model (This high level recitation of the machine learning model and training of the model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
These claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore the claim is not patent eligible.
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, 7-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20190367019) in view of Kawanami (US 20190072670) and Lee (US 20190059780).
Lee not used in the prior office action.
Regarding claim 1, Yan teaches, a learning data collecting system (Yan: [47]: training data collection), comprising:
a positioning device configured to generate position data of a vehicle (Yan: [29, 47]: GPS for position data of vehicle);
a radar configured to receive a reflection wave of a radio wave transmitted around the vehicle and generate echo data associated with a direction (Yan: [29, 47]: Radar unit for sensing objects in the local environment – radar functions by transmitting and listening for their reflections (echo));
a communication device configured to receive travel data of another vehicle, the travel data containing position data of the other ship (Yan: [31]: receive data from proximate vehicle; [47]: “position and velocity of neighboring vehicles in the vicinity”); and
processing circuitry configured to extract, from the echo data, partial image data of an area corresponding to the position data … (Yan: [58]: extract relevant information from image by removing outlier data)
However, Yan does not specifically teach,
vehicle is a ship;
extract, from the echo data, partial echo data of an area corresponding to the position data of the other ship based on the position data of the ship and the position data of the other ship;
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether to use the partial echo data as learning data;
Kawanami teaches,
vehicle is a ship (Kawanami: [42]: Remote sensing systems in a ship);
processing circuitry configured to extract, from the echo data, partial echo data of an area corresponding to the position data of the other ship based on the position data of the ship and the position data of the other ship (Kawanami: Fig. 2 [51, 55, 57]: extracting model extracts echo data portions that correspond to location of nearby ships; [55]: position of the analysis areas may be predetermined);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yan and Kawanami because the combination would not only enable extracting relevant portions of echo data from a ship as part of data collection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable collecting training data not only for cars but also ships to be used to enhance machine learning;
Lee further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether to use the partial echo data as learning data (Lee: [164, 177-178]: a subset of the pre-processed data may be used for training a neural network model);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kawanami, Hara and Lee because the combination would enable using image data to train a machine learning model with applications for navigation at sea. The combination improves the recognition rates in models by improving the selection of relevant training data (see Lee [3]).
Regarding claim 3, Yan, Kawanami and Lee teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to associate radar-related data related to the radar with the partial echo data (Kawanami: Fig. 3, [55-56]: radar related information in extracted partial echo data as illustrated in the figure).
Regarding claim 7, Yan, Kawanami and Lee teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to transfer to an external device the partial echo data accumulated in a memory (Yan: [36, 49]: store collected data; data may be transferred to a data processor) (Kawanami: Fig. 2 [51, 55, 57]: extracted portions of data).
Regarding claim 8, Yan, Kawanami and Lee teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to … the machine learning model stored in a memory (Yan: [20, 22, 49, 53, 70, 73]: store in devices and transmitted over network);
The arts do not specifically teach replacing models. However, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that models may also be stored in external devices and replacing of one model with another may be done if required. The limitation merely claims that a model may be replace without any specifics on why and when. This limitation therefore does not rely on any technical consideration and therefore does not contribute to a technical effect and to the solution of an objective technical problem. Thus, this limitation does not add any inventive concept that distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding claim 10, Yan, Kawanami and Lee teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to detect a direction of the ship via a direction sensor, and the radar associates the direction detected by the direction sensor with the echo data (Kawanami: Fig. 3: [51]: As illustrated in figure echo data with direction of ship).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20190367019), Kawanami (US 20190072670) and Lee (US 20190059780) in view of Morita (US 20170253308).
Regarding claim 2, Yan, Kawanami and Lee teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above but not, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to associate the travel data of the other ship with the partial echo data;
Morita teaches, associate the travel data of the other ship with the echo data (Morita: [65-67, 73]:other ship travel data associated with echo sounding); It would have been obvious to make association of relevant information in a partial echo data.
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yan, Kawanami, Lee and Morita because the combination would not only enable associating additional information in the echo data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable collecting training data of extracted echo data with additional information associated with it.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20190367019), Kawanami (US 20190072670) and Lee (US 20190059780) in view of Bai (CN 102778680).
Regarding claim 9, Yan, Kawanami and Lee teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above but not, wherein the processing circuitry changes the shape or the size of the area according to the travel data of the other ship or radar-related data;
Bai teaches, wherein the processing circuitry changes the shape or the size of the area according to the travel data of the other ship or radar-related data (Bai: [25-28]: image segmented to sub images based on variable parameters (changes shape));
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yan, Kawanami, Lee and Bai because the combination would enable the generation of sub images based on image information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination would enable collecting training data of extracted echo data with additional information associated with it.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20190367019), Kawanami (US 20190072670) and Lee (US 20190059780) in view of Hara (JP 2021197043).
Regarding claim 6, Yan, Kawanami and Lee teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate the likelihood of the presence of the target object based on a plurality of time-series partial echo data acquired from the travel data of the other ship (Yan: [45-46]: model to predict intention (likelihood of presence));
The examiner finds that broadly interpreted, intention reads on vehicle trajectory and location and therefore reads on the limitation as claimed;
Nonetheless, Hara teaches, likelihood of the presence of the target object (Pg. 4 [7], Pg. 5 [3], Pg. 6: object detection model based on echo data);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yan, Kawanami, Lee and Hara because the combination would enable using a model trained with echo data and ship information to identify ship locations at sea. The combination improves efficiency and time by enabling the use of machine learning in the field of object detection by ships instead of manual analysis;
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawanami (US 20190072670) in view of Hara (JP 2021197043) and Lee (US 20190059780).
Regarding claim 12, Kawanami teaches, an estimating device, comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
acquire echo data generated by a radar configured to receive a reflection wave of a radio wave transmitted around a ship, and
estimate travel data of another ship based on the acquired echo data (Kawanami: [45]: radar application to detect another ship path)…, and the travel data comprises at least one of a heading, course, traveling speed, ship length, or identification signal of the other ship (Kawanami: [55-56]: data of a heading, course direction etc.),
However, Kawanami does not specifically teach,
by implementing a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained on echo data as input data and travel data from the other ship as teaching data; and
determine whether to use partial echo data as learning data for training the machine learning model
Hara teaches, implementing a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained on echo data as input data and travel data from the other ship as teaching data Hara (Pg. 4 [7], Pg. 5 [3]: model trained using echo data and target travel information);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kawanami and Hara because the combination would enable using a model trained with echo data and ship information to identify ship locations at sea. The combination improves efficiency and time by enabling the use of machine learning in the field of object detection by ships instead of manual analysis;
Lee further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether to use the partial echo data as learning data (Lee: [164, 177-178]: a subset of the pre-processed data may be used for training a neural network model);
It would have been It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kawanami, Hara and Lee because the combination would enable using image data to train a machine learning model with applications for navigation at sea. The combination improves the recognition rates in models by improving the selection of relevant training data (see Lee [3]).
Claim Rejections using prior art
For claims 5, no prior art rejection has been presented as the claims are not clear. Please refer to the 112(b) rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments to claim 12 have been fully considered but does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. The limitation has been added to include types of data being used which is restriction to a field of use and does not help to overcome the abstract idea rejection as argued by the applicant. The limitations claim estimating travel data and making a determination based on acquired data. This is a mental process as explained above. These rejections are maintained.
Applicants’ arguments regarding 112b rejection have been fully considered. The applicant suggests that the amendment overcomes the rejection. The argument is not persuasive. Since this pertains to the amended section, the applicant is requested to review the explanations in the above rejection. The rejections are maintained.
Applicants’ prior art arguments have been fully considered but since they pertain to the amended sections of the claim, they are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in attached 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm 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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights