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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/5/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but not all of the information referred to therein has been considered.
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 1-5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15 recite(s):
receiving radar data from a radar system; wherein the radar system generates the radar data based on power values from radar returns;
de-clustering the radar data into a plurality of clusters;
detecting a plurality of boundary points for each cluster of the plurality of clusters; and
fitting a geometric shape defined by a plurality of parameters to the plurality of boundary points for each cluster of the plurality of clusters.
Claim 1 recites corresponding functions, attributable to a processor.
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “de-clustering the radar data into a plurality of clusters;
detecting a plurality of boundary points for each cluster of the plurality of clusters; and fitting a geometric shape defined by a plurality of parameters to the plurality of boundary points for each cluster of the plurality of clusters.” Claim 1 recites equivalent functions.
These encompass mental observations or evaluations, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes, which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 15 recites an additional element of “receiving radar data from a radar system; wherein the radar system generates the radar data based on power values from radar returns”.
Claim 1 requires a generic radar system to generate such data which is later received by a processor.
This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the evaluation. The step represents insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Concerning the “radar” specifically, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III).
Claim 1 also recites the additional elements of a processor and memory.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, there are no details about how the steps to de-cluster, detect, and fit are performed. The memory and processor generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mental process) without placing any limitation on how the processor operates. The claim invokes generic computer elements as a tool for performing the recited idea rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the step of generating radar reception data from radio receive signals is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown in the disclosure, is well-understood (e.g. [0003]-[0008). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the processor and memory were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Concerning claims 2-4, and 11-13 the claims further detail the data, clusters, or parameters and do not introduce any additional elements.
Claim 5 requires storing the parameters in memory, merely adding insignificant extra solution activity which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the idea.
Claim 9 and 10 add an additional mental steps of coordinate conversion and data filtering, which do not introduce any additional elements.
Claim 14 requires separate determinations of geometric shapes and does not introduce any additional elements.
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 13 is 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 13 requires the “system” itself to comprise an “error”. It is unclear what an “error” is to the extent that it may be a component of a system, as the plain meaning of an error does not have any structural implication. Rather, such an error is seen as a result of fitting the geometric shape and is interpreted accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gertz et al. (5,363,107).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Gertz discloses a system and associated method, the system comprising:
a radar system configured to generate radar data based on power values from radar returns (column 1, lines 65 - column 2, line 2); a memory maintaining program instructions (column 8, lines 31-45); and
one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions causing the one or more processors to:
receive the radar data (column 5, lines 5-14);
de-cluster the radar data into a plurality of clusters (column 5, line 61-column 6, line 2);
detect a plurality of boundary points for each cluster of the plurality of clusters (column 23, lines 13-14); and
fit a geometric shape defined by a plurality of parameters to the plurality of boundary points for each cluster of the plurality of clusters (column 23, lines 14-34).
Regarding claim 2, Gertz discloses the plurality of clusters are associated with a plurality of threat areas; wherein the geometric shape for each cluster of the plurality of clusters represents the plurality of threat areas (column 1, lines 65 - column 2, line 2).
Regarding claim 4, Gertz discloses a size of the plurality of parameters defining the geometric shape for each cluster of the plurality of clusters is less than a size of the radar data (column 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 5 Gertz discloses the program instructions cause the one or more processors to store the plurality of parameters defining the geometric shape for each cluster of the plurality of clusters in the memory; wherein storing the plurality of parameters defining the geometric shape for each cluster of the plurality of clusters in the memory reduces a memory requirement for the memory compared to storing the radar data in the memory (column 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 6, Gertz discloses a communication system (Fig. 1, 2); wherein the communication system is configured to transmit the plurality of parameters defining the geometric shape for each cluster of the plurality of clusters via a communication channel; wherein transmitting the plurality of parameters defining the geometric shape for each cluster of the plurality of clusters reduces a bandwidth of the communication channel compared to transmitting the radar data via the communication channel (column 3, lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 7, Gertz discloses the communication channel comprises one of a satellite communication link, a very-high frequency link, or a high frequency link (column 4, line 68 - column 5, line 4).
Regarding claim 10, Gertz discloses the program instructions cause the one or more processors to filter the radar data based on the power values of the radar returns before de-clustering (column 13, lines 7-34; for each map, pixels below the level of the map are zeroed).
Regarding claim 13, while the limitation imposed by the claim is unclear, the claimed error is always present between a shape and the data it is fit to.
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 14, Gertz discloses the power values upon which the radar data is based are reflectivity values (this is implicit for radar; further “the seven National Weather Service weather levels: column 5, lines 5-14, is readily recognized by one skilled in the art as referring to the NWS reflectivity scale, correlating reflectivity ranges with intensities; these include values associated with the claim 3 elements), wherein the program instructions cause the one or more processors to separately determine the geometric shapes for low reflectivity values, medium reflectivity values, and high reflectivity values for each cluster of the plurality of clusters (e.g. column 8, lines 14-16; col. 11, lines 20-23). Clearly, transmission is caused in response to radar data above a threshold (column 13, lines 16-18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gertz et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bunch et al. (US 2009/0219196).
Gertz discloses as sources radars which natively produce data in polar coordinates (column 1, lines 65-68) and teaches that the source of the data may include “local instrumentation” (implying such radars, column 5, lines 5-8), but is not found to specifically discuss a conversion of polar coordinates to the rectangular coordinates of the maps being used in the shape fitting. Rather, an embodiment is detailed where the data is already formatted as such (column 5, lines 8-14). Bunch discloses a radar data compression system where polar coordinate radar data is converted to Cartesian coordinates ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to include in the system of Gertz the capability to convert polar coordinate radar data from local radars to cartesian (rectangular) coordinates as disclosed by Bunch so that no additional hardware is required to implement the compression on locally sourced data.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gertz et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kronfeld (10,175,353).
Regarding claim 11, Gertz discloses the parameters include coordinates for the geometric shape but the coordinates are for a particular map rather than latitude and longitude as claimed. Kronfeld discloses a system to communicate radar weather data to aircraft and includes latitude and longitude among the data transmitted (column 14, lines 35-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gertz to use latitude and longitude as the coordinates with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be easily correlated with on-board radar data as described by Kronfeld.
Regarding claim 12, Gertz discloses the geometric shape is an ellipse; wherein the plurality of parameters comprise a major axis, a minor axis, and an inclination of the ellipse (column 18, lines 53-58).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang discloses elliptic fitting of Doppler weather data. Jones et al. describes clustering of weather radar data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646