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 .
Specification and Drawings
The specification and drawings are objected to because of the following reasons:
Figure 2 shows variables R0 and R1. These variables do not appear to be mentioned in the applicant’s specification, other than in equation 13, as undefined variables. It is not clear whether the distances assigned to these variables in Figure 2 match the variables in equation 13, due to the lack of definition of the variables.
Variable R1 is also shown in figure 3. However, it is unclear if R1 in figure 3 is the same R1 as in figure 2, due to the lack of description or definition of R1 in the applicant’s disclosure.
Figure 2 also shows a variable d0 that does not appear in the applicant’s disclosure.
Paragraph 0009 of the applicant’s original specification states, “The flash imaging lidar uses the AFD method.” This is the first instance of AFD, but AFD is not defined. It will be construed that the sentence should state, “The flash imaging lidar uses the adjacent frame difference (AFD) method.”)
The applicant’s original specification lists equations in paragraphs 0013, 0015, 0017, 0021, 0023, 0045, 0047, 0048, 0049, 0050, 0053, 0061, and 0062. The numbering of the equations starts with (6) in paragraph 0013. It is unclear whether there are equations (1) – (5) that are missing, or whether there is a reason why the numbering of the equations does not start with (1). The examiner does note that the claims do list equations (1) – (5) and that some of these equations do match some of the equations listed in the applicant’s specification, albeit with different equation numbers. It is not clear if the applicant was intentionally trying to match or not match certain equations in the claims to their supporting equations in the specification. The examiner requests clarification. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the equation numbering in the claims to be completely distinct and separate from how the equations may be numbered in the specification.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claims 8 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 discloses, “A computer-readable storage media storing a program, wherein when the program is executed by a processor, the processor performs the method … according to claim 1. The claim, as currently worded, raises some ambiguity as to whether the claim falls within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claim 8 technically depends on method claim 1, which is a process. However, the language of “A computer-readable storage media” could be construed as a signal per se, which, even if it did not trigger a statutory 101 rejection, may raise 112 questions about how the claimed method can be performed using a signal per se. To eliminate possible ambiguity, the examiner suggests that claims 8 (and its dependent claims 16-20) be rewritten to specify a “non-transitory computer-readable storage media.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 2-20 depend on claim 1. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
A method for measuring an attenuation coefficient of a water body by a flash imaging lidar, wherein the method uses an adjacent frame difference (AFD) method to measure backscattering intensity values along front and back edges of a range-gate in the water body, and combine a model of a relationship between the attenuation coefficient of the water body and a backscattering intensity to obtain the attenuation coefficient of the water body of a location in the water body (This limitation recites various abstract mathematical concepts. First, it specifically recites an adjacent frame difference (AFD) method, which is a method that is defined by specific mathematical equations (see equations (6) – (18) of the applicant’s original specification. The limitation also recites a model of a relationship between attenuation coefficient and backscattering intensity. This explicitly recites a mathematical relationship between two variables, attenuation coefficient and backscattering intensity.)
step 1, analyzing a backscattering of different overlapping areas between a laser spot and a received field of view, introducing an overlap coefficient F, and constructing an equation for a total backscattering intensity in the water body (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept in the form of explicitly reciting a mathematical equation for a total backscattering intensity.)
step 2, solving a horizontal distance of a target from a lidar system based on the equation for the total backscattering intensity in the water body to obtain a differential equation (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept in the form of explicitly reciting a differential equation.)
step 3, using the differential equation to model the relationship between the attenuation coefficient of the water body and the backscattering intensity (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept in the form of explicitly reciting a differential equation and a mathematical relationship between two variables.)
Dependent claims 2-20 depend on independent claim 1 and also recite its abstract limitations by virtue of their dependence.
In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claims 2-6 and 11-20 explicitly recite specific mathematical formulas.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
Claim 1 discloses various concepts, such as a “water body” and “flash imaging lidar” that in some contexts, could be considered to serve as “structure.” However, their purpose here is merely to give technological context to the type of data that is mathematically processed. They merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). There is no particular structure of the flash imaging lidar system that is positively recited and affirmatively claimed. All of the steps of the method, as seen above, explicitly recite abstract mathematical concepts.
Dependent claims 2-20 depend on independent claim 1 and also recite its limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application by virtue of their dependence.
In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses a computer device, with various computer components. Claim 8 discloses a computer-readable storage media. Claim 9 discloses an information data processing terminal that performs data processing operations. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
Claim 10 discloses, “wherein the method is configured in liquid measurements.” This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). It can also be construed as merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as there is no explanation of how the method being configured in liquid measurements relates to the core “solution” represented by the claims.
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (CN104199048A) in view of Tian et al (CN110471084A) and Zhou et al NPL (Zhou, Guoqing; Li, Chenyang; Zhang, Dianjun; Liu, Dequan; Zhou, Xiang; and Zhan, Jie – Overview of Underwater Transmission Characteristics of Oceanic LiDAR; IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, Vol. 14, 2021). Please note attached machine translations for the CN references.
With respect to claim 1, Gao et al discloses:
A method for measuring an attenuation coefficient of a water body by a flash imaging lidar (paragraph 0002 states, “This invention relates to a remote sensing method for measuring the attenuation coefficient of shallow seawater.”; paragraph 0016 states, “The principle of flash laser imaging radar for sea surface imaging is that the backscattering of laser light by seawater below the sea surface will cause a certain degree of distortion in the echo. By detecting and analyzing this distortion, the attenuation coefficient of shallow seawater can be calculated.”)
and combine a model of a relationship between the attenuation coefficient of the water body and a backscattering intensity to obtain the attenuation coefficient of the water body of a location in the water body (suggested by paragraph 0017, which states, “This invention proposes a novel method for detecting the attenuation coefficient of shallow seawater by utilizing a flash laser imaging radar to detect the distortion caused by backscattering of seawater in the sea surface echo.” Here, Gao et al establishes the relationship between attenuation coefficient and backscattering. Distortion suggests intensity. See also paragraph 0038, which states, “The principle of flash laser imaging radar for sea surface imaging is that the backscattering of laser light by seawater below the sea surface will cause a certain degree of distortion in the echo. By detecting and analyzing this distortion, the attenuation coefficient of shallow seawater can be calculated.”)
With respect to claim 1, Gao et al differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the method uses an adjacent frame difference (AFD) method to measure backscattering intensity values along front and back edges of a range-gate in the water body
wherein the method comprises the following steps:
step 1, analyzing a backscattering of different overlapping areas between a laser spot and a received field of view, introducing an overlap coefficient F, and constructing an equation for a total backscattering intensity in the water body
step 2, solving a horizontal distance of a target from a lidar system based on the equation for the total backscattering intensity in the water body to obtain a differential equation
step 3, using the differential equation to model the relationship between the attenuation coefficient of the water body and the backscattering intensity
With respect to claim 1, Tian et al discloses:
wherein the method uses an adjacent frame difference (AFD) method to measure backscattering intensity values along front and back edges of a range-gate in the water body (Tian abstract states, “A range-gated lidar imaging method based on adjacent frame differences.”; Tian paragraph 0038 states, “The beneficial effect of this invention is that the above-mentioned range-gated lidar imaging method based on the difference between adjacent frames obtains the effective distances … by performing difference calculation on the intensity images of two adjacent frames. The three-dimensional image of the target can be reconstructed based on the effective distances … the above method has the advantages of fast imaging speed, high range resolution, large imaging range, simple data processing …”)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tian et al into the invention of Gao et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of faster processing speeds, higher range resolutions, and simpler data processing.
With respect to claim 1, Zhou et al NPL discloses:
wherein the method comprises the following steps:
step 1, analyzing a backscattering of different overlapping areas between a laser spot and a received field of view, introducing an overlap coefficient F, and constructing an equation for a total backscattering intensity in the water body (Please note the below excerpt from page 8147, column 1 of Zhou et al NPL. Please note that it discloses an equation that connects variables for backward elastic scattering, overlap coefficient, and attenuation coefficient (Highlights mine).)
PNG
media_image1.png
571
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
step 2, solving a horizontal distance of a target from a lidar system based on the equation for the total backscattering intensity in the water body to obtain a differential equation (obvious in view of combination; paragraph 0049 of Gao et al states, “Where L is the distance from the water surface to point S …”; Zhou et al NPL page 8148, column 1, lines 35-37 state, “The calculation speed is directly proportional to the number of horizontal layers used to analyze the optical characteristics of oceans. Zhou et al NPL page 8147, column 2, first paragraph in section A states, “A direct solution needs to assume a variety of ideal conditions, such as homologous optical characteristics of the water body, a horizontal sea level …” Primary reference Gao et al teaches distance. Zhou et al NPL demonstrates value of considering horizontal orientation. Zhou et al NPL also discloses equation of step 1.)
step 3, using the differential equation to model the relationship between the attenuation coefficient of the water body and the backscattering intensity (obvious in view of combination; Gao et al discloses relationship between attenuation coefficient and backscattering. Zhou et al NPL shows a specific equation linking these variables.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhou et al NPL into the invention of Gao et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of improved computational efficiency.
With respect to claim 7, Gao et al, as modified, discloses:
A computer device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores computer program; when the computer program is executed by the processor, the processor performs the method for measuring the attenuation coefficient of the water body by the flash imaging lidar according to claim 1 (obvious in view of combination; It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed operations of modified Gao et al on the claimed computer device, which appears to simply be a generic computer. Furthermore, paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0050-0051 of Tian et al explicitly disclose a computer.)
With respect to claim 8, Gao et al, as modified, discloses:
A computer-readable storage media storing a program, wherein when the program is executed by a processor, the processor performs the method for measuring the attenuation coefficient of the water body by the flash imaging lidar according to claim 1 (obvious in view of combination; It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed operations of modified Gao et al via a program stored on the claimed computer-readable storage media, which appears to simply be a generic computer-readable storage media. Furthermore, paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0050-0051 of Tian et al explicitly disclose a computer.)
With respect to claim 9, Gao et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein when the information data processing terminal is configured for an implementation on an electronic device, the information data processing terminal provides a user input interface to implement the method for measuring the attenuation coefficient of the water body by the flash imaging lidar according to claim 1 (obvious in view of combination; The claimed information data processing terminal with user input interface appears to be a generic computer. As discussed above, paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0050-0051 of Tian et al explicitly disclose a computer. Using a generic computer to perform the operations of modified Gao et al would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
With respect to claim 10, Gao et al, as modified, discloses:
The method for measuring the attenuation coefficient of the water body by the flash imaging lidar according to claim 1, wherein the method is configured in liquid measurements (All the cited art is directed to bodies of water. Therefore, liquid measurements are obvious.)
Claims 2-6 and 11-20 are directed to mathematical equations (1) – (5) in the following order:
Claims 2, 11, and 16 are directed to equation (1)
Claims 3, 12, and 17 are directed to equation (2)
Claims 4, 13, and 18 are directed to equation (3)
Claims 5, 14, and 19 are directed to equation (4)
Claims 6, 15, and 20 are directed to equation (5)
The exact versions of these equations were not found in the art. However, the examiner submits that the claimed equations are all obvious variations or derivations of equations discussed in the cited art, such as the equations in Zhou et al NPL.
The cited equations use similar variables (such as attenuation coefficient, backscattering, and overlap coefficient) in a similar context (a water body, where lidar measurements are used).
One of the KSR rationales for obviousness is “Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations.” Here, the prior art teaches a base device/method/product that is similar or analogous to the claims (using lidar for a water body). Design incentives or market forces would have prompted change to the base device/method/product, such as using mathematical variations to solve for similar problems (i.e. measuring water body and lidar-related measurement properties). Known variations or principles would meet the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, and the implementation would have been predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vuorenkoski-Dalgleish et al (US PgPub 20160238698) disclose an underwater sensing system.
Ulich (US Pat 4963024) discloses a method and apparatus for determining K factor.
Tian et al (US PgPub 20160364886) discloses a method and system for calculating laser beam spot size.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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 M 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 04/04/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857