DETAILED ACTION
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 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, line 3 – “collect” needs to be changed to “collecting”.
Regarding claim 8, line 7 – “process” needs to be changed to “processing”.
Since claim 8 is a method claim. The required changes put the claim in better form for claiming a method. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the apparatus, method and product for determining locations of unknown radio frequency (RF) emitters that can be accomplished through a series of mental processes. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites an apparatus. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 8 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 15 (and its dependents) recites a product. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 8, and similarly claims 1 and 15, recites:
process the collected RF emission information to determine locations of one or more unknown RF emitters based on the recorded signal amplitudes, geolocations, and time stamps.
The “process” step of may be performed by observing and evaluating the received signals to determine location information which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15 encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process.
Regarding claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-17, the further steps as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Regarding claims 5-7, 12-14 and 18-20, the further steps as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind through mathematical algorithm(s)/calculation(s) using evaluation and judgement.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional element of claim 8, and similarly claims 1 and 15 is “collect radio frequency (RF) emission information by sweeping through one or more RF frequencies using at least one software defined radio (SDR) and recording RF signal amplitude sensed for each of the one or more RF frequencies and recording geolocations and time stamps associated with each recorded RF signal amplitude”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gatherings steps for further analyzing/calculation. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carbajal (US 2015/0056926).
Carbajal
PNG
media_image1.png
448
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
688
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Carbajal discloses in Fig 1 and 2A above an apparatus (i.e. a spectrum management device 102, 202) for determining locations of radio frequency emitters comprising:
at least one software defined radio (SDR) (i.e. “Data may be collected from known signals or unknown signals and time spaced in order to provide expedient information. I/Q sampled data may contain raw signal data that may be used to demodulate and translate signals by streaming them to a signal analyzer or to a real-time demodulator software defined radio that may have the newly identified signal parameters for the signal of interest. The inherent nature of the input RF allows for any type of signal to be analyzed and demodulated based on the reconfiguration of the software defined radio interfaces.”) ([0067]) configured to collect radio frequency (RF) emission information by sweeping through one or more RF frequencies (i.e. The wireless environment 100 may include various sources 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, and 114 generating various radio frequency (RF) signals 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126. As an example, mobile devices 104 may generate cellular RF signals 116, such as CDMA, GSM, 3G signals, etc. As another example, wireless access devices 106, such as Wi-Fi.RTM. routers, may generate RF signals 118, such as Wi-Fi.RTM. signals. As a further example, satellites 108, such as communication satellites or GPS satellites, may generate RF signals 120, such as satellite radio, television, or GPS signals. As a still further example, base stations 110, such as a cellular base station, may generate RF signals 122, such as CDMA, GSM, 3G signals, etc. As another example, radio towers 112, such as local AM or FM radio stations, may generate RF signals 124, such as AM or FM radio signals. As another example, government service provides 114, such as police units, fire fighters, military units, air traffic control towers, etc. may generate RF signals 126, such as radio communications, tracking signals, etc. The various RF signals 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126 may be generated at different frequencies, power levels, in different protocols, with different modulations, and at different times. The various sources 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, and 114 may be assigned frequency bands, power limitations, or other restrictions, requirements, and/or licenses by a government spectrum control entity, such as a the FCC. However, with so many different sources 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, and 114 generating so many different RF signals 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, overlaps, interference, and/or other problems may occur. A spectrum management device 102 in the wireless environment 100 may measure the RF energy in the wireless environment 100 across a wide spectrum and identify the different RF signals 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126 which may be present in the wireless environment 100. The identification and cataloging of the different RF signals 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126 which may be present in the wireless environment 100 may enable the spectrum management device 102 to determine available frequencies for use in the wireless environment 100. In addition, the spectrum management device 102 may be able to determine if there are available frequencies for use in the wireless environment 100 under certain conditions (i.e., day of week, time of day, power level, frequency band, etc.). In this manner, the RF spectrum in the wireless environment 100 may be managed.”) ([0079]) and recording RF signal amplitude sensed for each of the one or more RF frequencies and recording geolocations and time stamps associated with each recorded RF signal amplitude (i.e. “For example, the information stored in static database may be used to determine the spectral density, center frequency, bandwidth, baud rate, modulation type, protocol (e.g., GSM, CDMA, OFDM, LTE, etc.), system or carrier using licensed spectrum, location of the signal source, and a timestamp the signal of interest.”) ([0072]); and
at least one processor (i.e. signal processor 214) configured to process the collected RF emission information to determine locations of one or more RF emitters based on the recorded signal amplitudes, geolocations, and time stamps ([0081]-[0084]).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, Carbajal discloses the at least one processor configured to sort and clean the collected radio frequency (RF) emission information to eliminate invalid or erroneous data associated with the collection of the radio frequency (RF) emission information ([0084]; [0087]-[0088]).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 15, the claims are directed toward a method and product that is performed by the apparatus as claimed in claims 1-2. The cited portions of Carbajal used in the rejection of claims 1-2 disclose where the apparatus performs the claimed method as cited in claim 8-9 and 15. Therefore, claims 8-9 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-2 stated above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbajal in view of Westcott et al (US 2014/0327571).
Westcott et al
PNG
media_image3.png
404
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3-4, Carbajal disclose in Fig 2A above at least one memory device (i.e. memory 230) communicatively coupled to the at least one processor ([0083]). Carbajal does not explicitly disclose the at least one processor further configured to: produce at least one meshed grid in the at least one memory device, the at least one meshed grid including the geospatial information including recorded latitude and longitude values to establish grid vectors; determine one or more boundary conditions within the meshed grid to produce coordinates of a rectangular grid (X, Y) based on at least one of maximum and minimum of recorded latitude and longitude values; and produce at least one of two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of the collected radio frequency (RF) emission information based the meshed grid as claimed.
Westcott et al teach in the same field of endeavor in Fig 4 above the at least one processor (i.e. processor, microprocessor) ([0028]; [0133]) configured to: produce at least one meshed grid in the at least one memory device, the at least one meshed grid including the geospatial information including recorded latitude and longitude values to establish grid vectors; determine one or more boundary conditions within the meshed grid to produce coordinates of a rectangular grid (X, Y) based on at least one of maximum and minimum of recorded latitude and longitude values; and produce at least one of two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of the collected radio frequency (RF) emission information based the meshed grid ([0105]-[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carbajal in view of Westcott et al by incorporating such processor configured to: produce at least one meshed grid in the at least one memory device, the at least one meshed grid including the geospatial information including recorded latitude and longitude values to establish grid vectors; determine one or more boundary conditions within the meshed grid to produce coordinates of a rectangular grid (X, Y) based on at least one of maximum and minimum of recorded latitude and longitude values; and produce at least one of two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of the collected radio frequency (RF) emission information based the meshed grid as taught by Westcott et al to gain advantage of properly determining locations of the emitters; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 16-17, the claims are directed toward a method and product that is performed by the apparatus as claimed in claims 3-4. The cited portions of Carbajal in view of Westcott used in the rejection of claims 3-4 disclose where the apparatus performs the claimed method as cited in claim 10-11 and 16-17. Therefore, claims 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3-4 stated above.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbajal.
Regarding claims 5-7, Carbajal does not explicitly disclose utilizing a k-mean clustering process/algorithm to process the collected RF emission information for determining locations of the emitters as claimed. However, it is well known in the art of experimentation that one derives his or her own formulation to operate a system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a k-mean clustering process/algorithm to process the collected RF emission information in the system of Carbajal for determining locations of the emitters, since it is well known in the art to derive a mathematical (algorithm, formula, equation) to operate a system.
Regarding claims 12-14, and 18-20, the claims are rejected for similar reasons as stated in claims 5-7 above.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0393421 discloses a method includes receiving, using radio frequency (RF) collectors, RF signals from a target object. The RF signals of target object may be converted to In-phase and Quadrature (I/Q) data. Navigation data of each RF collector may be determined and I/Q data of each of RF collectors are paired. Processing functions may be applied on paired I/Q data. Using paired I/Q data, one or more of time difference of arrival (TDOA) measurement data and frequency difference of arrival (FDOA) measurement data between each pair of the RF collectors are determined. One or more of TDOA measurement data, FDOA measurement data and navigation data of each RF collector are converted to message data. A trajectory of target object may be estimated based on confidence measure of one or more of TDOA and FDOA measurement data. Using estimated trajectory of target object for displaying on a display device of a computing device.
US 11,832,211 discloses techniques for determining and associating multiple locations with beacons, and estimating a location of an electronic device based on beacons having multiple associated locations.
US 2012/0235864 discloses a three-dimensional (3-D) energy-based emitter geolocation technique determines the geolocation of a radio frequency (RF) emitter based on energy or received signal strength (RSS) of transmitted signals. The technique may be employed with small unmanned air vehicles (UAV), and obtains reliable geolocation estimates of radio frequency (RF) emitters of interest.
EP 3,646,647 discloses systems and techniques for determining emitter locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646