DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action (“Action”) on the merits to the application filed May 11, 2023. Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 submitted on Aug. 11, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97 and 1.98 and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities. Each of the functions in claim 15 should be changed as follows for grammatical reasons (bolding is added for readability only):
one or more processors arranged to:
[[building]] build a triangulated two-dimensional (2D) manifold model of the target region according to a geographic information of the target region;
[[establishing]] establish an objective function at least including a risk function and a cost function with respect to the model; and
[[minimizing]] minimize the objective function with different weight factors to obtain a set of Pareto optimal solutions in response to the weight factors, respectively, so as to derive a Pareto front;
[[optimizing]] optimize the Pareto front by satisfying terrain slope, marine protected area, and volcanic safety constraints, so as to obtain an optimized Pareto front; and
[[selecting]] select one of optimized Pareto optimal solution of the optimized Pareto front by using a given condition, so as to determine the optimal submarine cable path; and a display arranged to display the determined optimal submarine cable path.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites, “the objective function is established by using the cost function and the risk function.” Claim 1 recites, “establishing an objective function at least including a risk function and a cost function.” In other words, claim 1 establishes the “objective function” as including the “risk function” and “cost function,” the same as claim 5. And since claim 5 does not further define any of the “objection function,” “risk function,” or “cost function,” or include any other limitations not of the same scope as claim 1, claim 5 does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine whether claimed subject matter is patent eligible section 2106 of the MPEP requires specific evaluation of the limitations recited. In step 1, a determination is made as to whether a claim is directed to a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter). If so, then a determination is made as to whether the claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea, using a three part test: First, in step 2A, prong 1 the abstract idea is identified; Second, in step 2A, prong 2 the abstract idea is determined to be integrated into a practical application or not; and Third, in step 2B the additional claim limitations are evaluated individually and as a whole to determine if they amount to an inventive concept (i.e., determining whether the limitations are significantly more than the abstract idea itself).
While the claims fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter (i.e., step 1 is satisfied because independent claims 1, 15, and 16 are directed to a process, a “system” (e.g., apparatus), and an article of manufacture or apparatus, respectively, and the remaining claims all depend from these claims), they are nonetheless patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more.
Initially, the following explanation is based not only on the guidance in the MPEP, but also the “2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence,” published on July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58128) (AI-SME Update). Moreover, the Office has provided examples of patent ineligible subject matter that are relevant to the claimed subject matter of this application. In particular, example 481, is relevant to the discussion below of claims 1-16 and should be reviewed for further guidance and support of the determination that claims 1-16 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent Claims 1, 15, and 16
Claims 1, 15, and 16 recite limitations directed to an abstract idea, specifically the recitation of mathematical concepts and mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I and III. Claim 1 is representative of the scope of the relevant limitations, and thus, the discussion of claim 1 limitations is applicable to claims 15 and 16 as well.
Claim 1 recites in its entirety, with emphasis of those limitations directed to the abstract idea:
A method of determining an optimal submarine cable path between a starting point and an end point in a target region of Earth’s surface, comprising:
building a triangulated two-dimensional (2D) manifold model of the target region according to a geographic information of the target region;
establishing an objective function at least including a risk function and a cost function with respect to the established model; and
minimizing the objective function with different weight factors to obtain a set of Pareto optimal solutions in response to the weight factors, respectively, so as to derive a Pareto front;
optimizing the Pareto front by satisfying terrain slope, marine protected area, and volcanic safety constraints, so as to obtain an optimized Pareto front; and
selecting one of optimized Pareto optimal solution of the optimized Pareto front by using a given condition, so as to determine the optimal submarine cable path.
The following are the broadest reasonable interpretations consistent with the specification of various claim terms and limitations of the claim. The limitations are given their “plain meaning” or “ordinary and customary meaning given to the term[s] by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” See MPEP § 2111.01. Only those limitations needing discussion are addressed below, but if not mentioned, there plain meaning is clear and immediately apparent. The instant application has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0104447, and will be referenced as “PgPub” and cited below as needed.
A manifold model allows a geographic region to be represented as a mathematical topological space. A Pareto front and Pareto solutions mean a set of solutions to an equation or equations when separate distinct objectives are taking into consideration such that to find an “optimal” solution requires trade-offs where different objectives may outperform at the expense of other objectives depending on the criteria applied when solving the equation or equations but there is no single solution that optimizes every consideration.
With the above in mind, the “objective function” is a mathematical expression made up of two other mathematical expressions, the “cost function” and “risk function,” which are based on the other mathematical “manifold model” representing a geographic topological area. See e.g., PgPub, ¶9, Claim 6. Also a mathematical function is “minimizing the objective function with different weight factors to obtain” solutions, and subsequently deriving a set of “optimal” solutions to choose from. See PgPub, ¶46, minimizing can be accomplished through the mathematical “fast-marching method.” Based on the optimal solutions, a criteria is selected (see e.g., PgPub, ¶66, Fig. 3, a cost of $22.963 million) and a line is drawn to intersect the “optimal” solutions. Another criteria is selected (see e.g., PgPub, ¶67, Fig. 3, number of repairs at 31.2516) and a line is drawn to intersect the “optimal” solutions. Based on these intersections, there are limited and finite solutions to choose from (e.g. PgPub, ¶¶66-67, A1-A3 and B1-B3) depending on the criteria, and one of these is selected, which then corresponds to a particular path on which the submarine cable is to be laid. Each of these limitations, however, is mathematical and can be carried out in the human mind or on paper. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), subsection III, 2106.05(b).
With respect to the other limitations in claims 1, 15, and 16, they are addressed below.
For the reasons above, the noted limitations above fall within the meaning of mental processes and mathematical concepts, and are taken together as a single abstract idea to which the claims are directed. Thus, prong one of step 2A is satisfied and the analysis continues below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent Claims 1, 15, and 16
The specification as filed describes that “the present invention relates to techniques of determining an optimal submarine cable path in a target region of the Earth's surface, taking into account terrain slope, marine protected areas, and volcanic safety constraints.” PgPub, ¶2. The benefits being that “a planner cannot always consider all available alternatives given the time and resource limitations, this approach cannot provide a near-optimal path nor consider all of the various factors that may affect the cost and resilience of the submarine cables. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a more effective method for planning submarine cable paths that addresses the aforesaid shortcomings.” PgPub, ¶6.
However, while determining an optimal path may result in the “best” path for the submarine cable based on a multitude of factors and considerations, this is nothing more than an improvement in the abstract idea itself, which is not evidence of integration into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(a), subsection II. That is to say, whether the claims covered a less efficient mathematical algorithm or the current mathematical algorithm described in the instant application, they are both nonetheless still mathematical algorithms, the efficiencies of which do not make them any less mathematical. Similarly, limiting the abstract idea limitations to a submarine environment and the factors to take into considerations, such as “terrain slope, marine protected area, and volcanic safety constraints” are merely linking the use of the abstract idea to an environment or field of use without more. See MPEP § 2106.04(d), subsection I.
To summarize, the claims are similar to a claim, for example, that generally recites a machine that operates in accordance with F=ma, but nothing more. On the other hand, a claim to an apparatus or even a method that incorporates the mathematical law of nature, F=ma, but does not attempt to claim the law itself would be evidence of integration into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04, subsection II.A.1 In this case, there is nothing in the claim that shows any evaluation of physical locations based on the abstract idea, choosing one based on the abstract idea, repeating for a sufficient number of locations, and then laying/installing the submarine cable according to the determined path. Instead, as explained above, the claims attempt to cover the abstract idea that is the algorithm itself.
For these reasons, taking the limitations together or in combination, there is nothing that would show an integrated practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Independent Claims 1, 15, and 16
Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that show execution of the method on a particular machine or apparatus, such as executing the method on a specialized computer, etc. Claims 15 and 16, however, do recite that the claimed functions corresponding to the method steps are carried out by, or configured by, “one or more processors” (claim 15) and a “non-transitory computer readable medium for storing computer instructions that, when executed by one or more processors” (claim 16). Each of claims 1, 15, and 16 also recites an additional step/function. Taking claim 1 as a representative claim, this limitation is “building a triangulated two-dimensional (2D) manifold model of the target region according to a geographic information of the target region.” None of these additional limitations amounts to significantly more.
The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and does not require any detail on how to build the mathematical manifold model from “geographic information.” As a result, the limitation is nothing more than data gathering and applying that to an abstract idea, which is not significantly more. See MPEP §§ 2106.05, subsection I.A., 2106.05(g).
Additionally, as noted above, claims 15 and 16 require execution of the method steps and functions on “one or more processors.” However, these too are recited at a high level of generality such that the abstract idea is merely executed on a generic computer, and not any type of particular machine, which is also not significantly more. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(f).
Lastly, even as an ordered set of steps, the claim limitations provide no indication of any application of the invention or feature that would provide significantly more than the mathematical concepts and mental processes of the steps themselves. Moreover, the steps, in one sense, must be ordered for later-recited steps to make sense. For example, the manifold model must be built and the objective function established before any minimizing or optimizing may take place. However, this is a natural characteristic and consequence of the abstract idea itself, and not something that amounts to significantly more.
Based on the analysis in steps 2A and 2B as explained above, claims 1, 15, and 16 recite an abstract idea without significantly more and is directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Dependent Claims 2-14
Claims 2-14 merely recite additional mathematical or mental process concepts without anything more, or do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas because they are well-known or are merely identifying a property or characteristic of a claimed element without integrating it into any type of practical application or adding significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites, “geographic terrain of the target region is modelled, such that each of the points in the model is denoted by a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate.” This limitation is also nothing more than a mathematical mapping or conversion of 2D points to 3D points. There is nothing more specific about how this is done in the claim, thus, this limitation does not add significantly more and/or is merely an extension of the abstract idea itself.
Claim 3 recites, “the cost function is at least determined by at least one of factors including length of the submarine cable, location of the submarine cable, and requirements or licensing for security arrangements at specific areas where the submarine cable is located.” This limitation, while further defining the “cost function” is not significantly more and/or is merely an extension of the abstract idea itself because all this limitation does is define variables that make up the “cost function.” There is nothing in the claim about how these variables are used, etc., to show an integration of a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 4 recites, “the risk function is at least determined by a PGV data of the target region.” As with claim 3, this limitation merely further defines the data that is used to determine the “risk function,” which is not significantly more and/or is merely an extension of the abstract idea itself since all the claim limitation does is define data. Moreover, “PGV data” is described in the specification as “a well-represented index reflecting seismic hazard level, is applied to estimate cable repairs associated with earthquakes of a certain point X in the model M. The PGV data can be calculated by historical earthquakes in a region. The PGV data can also be obtained based on Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) (https://www.usgs.gov/) data provided by United States Geological Survey (USGS, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/).” PgPub, ¶41. In other words, the PGV data itself is well-known and available data, where merely limiting the data used in an abstract idea to that which is well-known cannot add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 5 recites, “the objective function is established by using the cost function and the risk function.” This limitation is the same scope as the “establishing” limitation from parent claim 1. Thus, claim 5 is also directed to the abstract idea since it does not further limit the abstract idea from claim 1.
Claim 6 recites, “the objective function is expressed as the following equation: Z(p) = C(p) + wR(p); wherein p represents a submarine cable path, Z(p) represents the objective function, R(p) represents the risk function, and w represents the weight factor.” Claim 6, while defining the “objective function” further only does so by giving the function an explicitly mathematical expression. The limitation of claim 6 does not add any other features or limitations beyond the mathematical expression, thus, claim 6 is nothing more than a further defining of the abstract idea itself as an explicitly mathematical equation, which is still just the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites, “the step of minimizing the objective function further comprising: applying a fast-marching method (FMM) to minimize the objective function with the different factors to obtain the set of Pareto optimal solutions.” Claim 7, while defining the step of “minimizing the objective function” further only does so by using a mathematical function, that is, the FMM. The limitation of claim 7 does not add any other features or limitations beyond the mathematical function, thus, claim 7 is nothing more than a further defining of the abstract idea itself as a mathematical function, which is still just the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites, “the step of applying the FMM further comprises: step A: using the objective function to calculate an objective function value of each of points in the model with one of the weight factors; step B: taking the reciprocal of the objective function value for each of the points for converting the minimization into an Eikonal equation; step C: applying the FMM to solve the Eikonal equation; step D: calculating an arrival time from the end point to each of the points in the model iteratively until reaching the end point; step E: backtracking from the start point to the end point and using the shortest arrival time of the points to generate one of the Pareto optimal solutions; and step F: repeating the step A to the step E with the other weight factors, so as to obtain the set of Pareto optimal solutions.” Claim 8 explicitly defines the application of the FMM, however, these additional steps are all mathematical in nature and thus are only adding the definition of the abstract idea but do not show an integrated practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites, “after the step of optimizing the Pareto front, each of the optimized Pareto optimal solutions of the optimized Pareto front represents a potential optimal submarine cable path, wherein the potential optimal submarine cable path satisfies the Terrence slope constraint, such that the potential optimal submarine cable path is located in a sub-region of the target region where the terrain slope does not exceed approximately 20 degrees.” As with other claims, while claim 9 further defines the optimal solutions and the “potential optimal submarine cable path,” this is merely done with other mathematical-type variables and selections. For example, as explained above, the Pareto solutions are plotted on a graph, intersection points are drawn, and those intersections represent possible solutions. Choosing one of these solutions is then based on a constraint, such as the “Terrence slope constraint” in claim 9. However, merely selecting a solution based on a criteria is nothing more than a general application of a decision making process that can be done in the human mind and is therefore also part of the abstract idea. There is no integrated practical application of using the “potential optimal submarine cable path,” and thus, the claim is still directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites, “after the step of optimizing the Pareto front, each of the optimized Pareto optimal solutions of the optimized the Pareto front represents a potential optimal submarine cable path, wherein the potential optimal submarine cable path satisfies the volcanic safety constraint, such that the minimum distance between one of the volcanos and the nearest point of the potential submarine cable path is greater or equal to a volcanic safety distance of the corresponding volcano.” Claim 11, which depends from claim 10, recites, “the volcanic safety distance is determined by highest historical volcanic explosivity index (HEVI) of the corresponding volcano in the target region.” Claim 12, which also depends from claim 10, recites, “after the step of optimizing the Pareto front, each of the optimized Pareto optimal solutions of the optimized Pareto front represents a potential optimal submarine cable path, wherein the potential optimal submarine cable path satisfies the marine protected area constraint, such that the potential optimal submarine cable path is located in a sub-region of the target region where is beyond marine protected areas of the target region.”
As with claim 9, claims 10-12 merely define the “potential optimal submarine cable path,” which is done with other mathematical-type variables and selections. Using other constraints as defined in claims 10-12 to select a solution is nothing more than a general application of a decision making process that can be done in the human mind and is therefore also part of the abstract idea. There is no integrated practical application of using the “potential optimal submarine cable path,” and thus, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites, “the given condition comprises a constant risk or a constant cost.” Defining a “condition” as nothing more than a “constant risk” or “constant cost,” while further narrowing, still is only defining the abstract idea itself. Using a “constant” is mathematical in nature, and thus, claim 13 is still directed to the abstract idea itself.
Claim 14 recites, “the geographic information of the target region comprises longitude, latitude, elevation, earthquake data and volcano data of the target region.” Geographic information of a region is often defined in terms of “longitude, latitude, elevation” as almost any geographical map will show. Further including “earthquake data and volcano data of the target region,” is still nothing more than adding variables and data to the model. Moreover, each of “longitude, latitude, elevation, earthquake data and volcano data” are well-known data. See PgPub, ¶32. Merely limiting the data used in an abstract idea to that which is well-known cannot add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
For these reasons, claims 2-14 do not add anything to the abstract idea that would show significantly more or an integrated practical application, or are merely further defining the abstract idea. As such, claims 2-14 are also directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
For the reasons explained above, none of claims 1-16 are directed to patent eligible subject matter under section 101, and are thus, rejected.
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 1-5, 7, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0116090, to Zukerman et al. (“Zukerman ‘090”), which is the published patent application of U.S. patent no. 10,425,280 cited by Applicant.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites and Zukerman ‘090 discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium for storing computer instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a method for determining an optimal submarine cable path between a starting point and an end point in a target region of Earth’s surface (Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶229-231, Fig. 16, the memory 1604 is understood to store a program for execution of the described method by the processor 1602), comprising:
building a triangulated two-dimensional (2D) manifold model of the target region according to a geographic information of the target region (Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶57, 68-74, Fig. 3, upper left step);
establishing an objective function at least including a risk function and a cost function with respect to the model (Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶75-103, 110, 186-191, the repair rate g(x,y,z) is part of a “risk function” and the link construction cost h(x,y,z) is part of a “cost function”); and
minimizing the objective function with different weight factors to obtain a set of Pareto optimal solutions in response to the weight factors, respectively, so as to derive a Pareto front (Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶108, 110);
optimizing the Pareto front by satisfying terrain slope (Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶166, 167, 212), marine protected area (Zukerman ‘090, ¶228), and volcanic safety constraints (Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶212, 222), so as to obtain an optimized Pareto front (Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶53, 57, 60, 104, 105, 110); and
selecting one of optimized Pareto optimal solution of the optimized Pareto front by using a given condition, so as to determine the optimal submarine cable path (Zukerman ‘090, ¶115).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a “method of determining an optimal submarine cable path between a starting point and an end point in a target region of Earth’s surface” with steps that are virtually identical to the functions recited in claim 16. As a result, Zukerman ‘090 anticipates the method of claim 1 for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of claim 16, and claim 1 is thus also rejected under section 102(a)(1) over Zukerman ‘090.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites a “system for determining an optimal submarine cable path between a starting point and an end point in a target region of Earth’s surface, comprising: one or more processors arranged to” carry out functions that are virtually identical to the functions recited in claim 16. As a result, and because Zukerman ‘090 also discloses a system with a processor 1602 in Fig. 16, Zukerman ‘090 anticipates the system of claim 15 for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of claim 16, and claim 15 is thus also rejected under section 102(a)(1) over Zukerman ‘090.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites and Zukerman ‘090 discloses a “method of claim 1, wherein geographic terrain of the target region is modelled, such that each of the points in the model is denoted by a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate.” Zukerman ‘090, ¶133.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites and Zukerman ‘090 discloses a “method of claim 1, wherein the cost function is at least determined by at least one of factors including length of the submarine cable, location of the submarine cable, and requirements or licensing for security arrangements at specific areas where the submarine cable is located.” Zukerman ‘090, ¶110, 186-191.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites and Zukerman ‘090 discloses a “method of claim 1, wherein the risk function is at least determined by a PGV data of the target region.” Zukerman ‘090, ¶135.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites and Zukerman ‘090 discloses a “method of claim 1, wherein the objective function is established by using the cost function and the risk function.” Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶75-103, 110, 186-191, the repair rate g(x,y,z) is part of a “risk function” and the link construction cost h(x,y,z) is part of a “cost function.”
Claim 7
Claim 5 recites and Zukerman ‘090 discloses a “method of claim 1, wherein the step of minimizing the objective function further comprising: applying a fast-marching method (FMM) to minimize the objective function with the different factors to obtain the set of Pareto optimal solutions.” Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶57, 107, 108, 152.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites and Zukerman ‘090 discloses a “method of claim 1, wherein the given condition comprises a constant risk or a constant cost.” Zukerman ‘090, ¶82.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites and Zukerman ‘090 discloses a “method of claim 1, wherein the geographic information of the target region comprises longitude, latitude, elevation, earthquake data and volcano data of the target region.” Zukerman ‘090, ¶¶147, 166, 167, 212-220.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zukerman ‘090 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0369290, to Zukerman et al. (“Zuckerman ‘290”), which is the published patent application of U.S. patent no. 11,635,544 cited by Applicant.
Claim 6
Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites, “the objective function is expressed as the following equation: Z(p) = C(p) + wR(p); wherein p represents a submarine cable path, Z(p) represents the objective function, R(p) represents the risk function, and w represents the weight factor.” While Zukerman ‘090 discloses an objective function that includes a cost function and risk function, the risk function is not necessarily taught as weighted, as required by claim 6. Even so, Zukerman ‘290 teaches that the objective function may have both variables weighted, and thus, the risk function would be weighted. See Zukerman ‘290, ¶76-77, where similar to Zukerman ‘090, h() is a cost function and g() is a risk function, and “c” is a weight. Since both Zukerman ‘090 and Zukerman ‘290 are the same field of determining an optimal submarine path for cable as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a weighting to the risk function, as in Zukerman ‘290, as well as the cost function, as in both Zukerman ‘090 and Zukerman ‘290 to convert the problem “into a single-objective path planning problem.” Attempting to minimize both cost and risk are “impossible,” thus, the weighted sum allows conversion to a single-objective planning problem and a set of Pareto solutions can be determined. See id., ¶¶75, 76.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0154323 also describes optimization of a “transport alignment” over a terrain model taking into account various constraints.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KADING whose telephone number is (571)270-3413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/JOSHUA KADING/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf.
Prosecution Insights