Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-5, 9-16, 20-27, and 31-33 (Invention I), with traverse, in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-8, 17-19, and 28-30 (Invention II) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (Group) II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Please review “Response to Arguments” section.
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, 9-16, and 20-37, and 31-33 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method of determining ocean state, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, data associated with a prior ocean forecast state;
receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations;
receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations;
determining, by the processing device, a correction to the prior ocean forecast state based on a forward acoustic model, on an adjoint acoustic model, on the data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and ocean salinity observations, and on the data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations; and
generating, by the processing device, a current ocean state based on the determined correction.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 12 and 23.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A method of determining ocean state, the method comprising: receiving, by a processing device, data associated with a prior ocean forecast state; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations;
In Claim 12: A system for determining an ocean state, the system comprising: a processing device; and a memory device operably coupled to the processing device, the memory device storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the processing device to perform: receiving data associated with a prior ocean forecast state; receiving data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations;
In Claim 23: A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions, the computer-readable instructions, when executed, cause a processing device to perform: receiving data associated with a prior ocean forecast state; receiving data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations.
The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a processing device or non-transitory computer readable medium (Claims 1 and 23) and a processing device; and a memory device operably coupled to the processing device, the memory device storing computer-readable instructions (Claim 12) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not meaningful and are qualified as particular machines. The limitations that generically recite receiving information (for example, in Claim 1: data associated with a prior ocean forecast state; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations) represent insignificant represent extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the … analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-16, 20-22, 24-27, and 31-33 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea mental process/mathematical relationship steps such as in Claims 3, 4, 9, 14, 15, 20, 25, 26, and 31) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 2, 13, and 24 (hydrophone), Claim 5, 16, and 27 (providing the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations), Claim 10, 21, and 32 (conducting a water-based operation), and Claims 11, 22, 33 (display) are all recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9-16, 20-27, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eugene Lavely et al. (US 20240003862), hereinafter ‘Lavely’ in view of Paul Hursky et al., “Adjoint modeling for acoustic inversion”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 607–619 (2004), hereinafter ‘Hursky’.
With regards to Claim 1, Lavely discloses
A method of determining ocean state (Figs. 1 and 2; this model corresponds to an entire ocean basin [0091]), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, data associated with a prior ocean forecast state (The model may have an initial state based on the best estimate of the current state of the various maritime parameters. Alternatively, the initial model may have a future forecast state, or a state in the recent past estimated with data collected in an interval spanning a time prior to that past date and up to the current time … The maritime model may be loaded into an underwater vehicle for subsequent access by an onboard processor when predicting the time-of-fight (TOF) (or full waveforms) of various received acoustic signals [0017]; A maritime model (or at least portions of a maritime model) may be preloaded into underwater vehicle 112 that includes numerous parameters to account for a variety of underwater effects on acoustic propagation [0030]);
receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and salinity observations; receiving, by the processing device, data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations (the superposition of these dynamical disturbances is observed as a net perturbation to a reference maritime model leading to local changes in various parameters such as temperature, pressure and salinity [0015]; a sensor array may be disposed within a given maritime region to measure various parameters of the surrounding water such as temperature, salinity, pressure, etc. The effects of the long and short period internal waves on acoustic signal propagation can be derived based on changes over time to the various measured parameters from the sensor array [0018]; Such sensors may be used, for example, to record acoustic source transmissions from the other distributed sources in the positioning system, or from source signals separate from the positioning system. In one embodiment, the acoustic data is processed to determine variance in arrival times for pulsed sources [0035]);
determining, by the processing device, a correction to the prior ocean forecast state based on the data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and ocean salinity observations, and on the data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations (The superposition of these dynamical disturbances is observed as a net perturbation to a reference maritime model leading to local changes in various parameters such as temperature, pressure and salinity. As these quantities are used to define the local sound speed, the travel time and specific ray paths associated with acoustic modes are perturbed. Therefore, if unaccounted for, these long and short period internal wave effects change the “predicted” acoustic signals relative to actual acoustic measurements that encode these effects. Acoustic data acquired on an undersea vehicle or a target platform and subsequently processed for tracking or positioning information will be subject to bias or error absent correction of the internal wave perturbation to the recorded data [0015]; Accordingly, accurately accounting for the perturbative effect of long and short period internal waves within a given maritime region enables adjustment of the parameters influencing acoustic propagation that may be used, in turn, to compute and remove the effect of internal waves on the acoustic data [0016]); and
generating, by the processing device, a current ocean state based on the determined correction (FIG. 6 illustrates an example method 600 for updating a maritime model based on maritime data measurements to account for the effect of long-period and/or short period internal waves, in accordance with certain embodiments of the present disclosure [0088]; marine-based parameters that may be measured include temperature, salt content, pressure, and velocity, to name a few examples. The measured maritime data may be transmitted from the measurement apparatus to either a processing station on land or on sea, to a signal beacon, or directly to an underwater vehicle. Method 600 continues with operation 604 where model update parameters based on the maritime data are received by a processing device [0089-0090]; Method 600 proceeds to block 608, where the maritime model is updated or adjusted by, for example, changing one or more of the marine-based parameters associated with the model. According to some embodiments, the maritime model is updated using the received model update parameters in order to account for the effect of long-period and/or short-period internal waves, or to update the effect that long-period and/or short-period internal waves currently have in a given maritime region [0092]).
Lavely also discloses using a forward acoustic model and adjoint model to generate sound speed map [0075, 0077].
However, Lavely does not specifically disclose determining, by the processing device, a correction to the prior ocean forecast state based on a forward acoustic model and on an adjoint acoustic model in addition to the data associated with a first set of ocean temperature and ocean salinity observations, and the data associated with a first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations.
Hursky discloses determining, by the processing device, a correction to the prior ocean forecast state based on a forward acoustic model and on an adjoint acoustic model (II. THE PARABOLIC EQUATION FORWARD MODEL, ITS TANGENT LINEAR MODEL, AND ITS ADJOINT, Section II … An adjoint model is derived from a linearized forward propagation model to propagate data-model misfit at the observation points back through the medium to the medium perturbations not being accounted for in the model, Abstract; The adjoint model directly back-propagates the data-model misfits, assuming there are no modeling errors, to provide corrections to the initial conditions and/or forcing, p.608; using the adjoint model to calculate a corrected sound speed profile, p.614; calculates the perturbations to the forward model inputs needed to correct for this misfit ... As a result, inversion processes using an adjoint model can accommodate large-dimensional problems, without demanding lower-dimensional representations, often required by alternative inverse methods in order to reduce the number of forward modeling runs needed to explore the search space, p.618).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lavely in view of Hursky to determine, by the processing device, a correction to the prior ocean forecast state also based on a forward acoustic model and on an adjoint acoustic model because of the advantages of such modeling (The adjoint model can thus provide a more economical way of exploring the search space (of model parameters un) in aid of solving inverse problems. The computational savings of using an adjoint model increases with the number of unknowns in the problem being addressed, since each unknown in the problem presents a potentially distinct perturbation that must be assessed by the forward model. As a result, inversion processes using an adjoint model can accommodate large-dimensional problems, without demanding lower-dimensional representations, often required by alternative inverse methods in order to reduce the number of forward modeling runs needed to explore the search space, Hursky, p.618).
With regards to Claim 2, Lavely additionally discloses the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations are captured by one or more hydrophones (.Other sensors that may be used along cable structure 108 include pressure sensors, current velocity sensors, salinity sensors and acoustic receivers (e.g., hydrophones.) [0023]).
With regards to Claim 3, Lavely additionally discloses determining a set of one or more model fields based on the first set of ocean temperature and ocean salinity observations (The superposition of these dynamical disturbances is observed as a net perturbation to a reference maritime model leading to local changes in various parameters such as temperature, pressure and salinity [0015]: The model defines the standard prognostic variables used in maritime circulation simulation and estimation, including temperature, salinity, meridional and zonal components of the velocity field, and the sea surface height [0017]; The coefficients representing the global propagating field can be fit over the modes using observed perturbations to the temperature field as mentioned above, or to perturbations in other reference quantities (e.g., salinity, pressure), or to the vertical velocity field, or in any combination of these data sources as obtained from a distribution of vertical line arrays fitted with the corresponding sensor types [0040]) and using mapping in determining the correction to the prior ocean state by comparing the mapped set to the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations (The base sound-speed map C.sub.0 may be deduced from maritime reference parameters such as water temperature, salinity, and pressure (or alternatively, water temperature, salinity, and density) [0071]).
However, Lavely does not specifically disclose wherein determining the correction to the prior ocean state comprises mapping the set of one or more model fields to an acoustic observation space and comparing the mapped set to the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations.
Hursky discloses wherein determining the correction to the prior ocean state comprises mapping the set of one or more model fields to an acoustic observation space and comparing the mapped set to the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations (these presumed medium properties are adjusted and the forward modeling repeated until the data-model misfit has been reduced. Note that the emphasis in this process is on the mapping from the unknown medium properties to the observations, when it is the medium properties that we want to estimate. What we really want is some way to propagate the data-model misfit from our observation points directly back to the points in the medium where we need to make adjustments, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lavely in view of Hursky to map the set of one or more model fields to an acoustic observation space and comparing the mapped set to the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations to evaluate model accuracy/errors (the field predicted by the forward model is compared with the measured field there, Hursky, Abstract).
With regards to Claims 4 and 5, Lavely is silent on comparing the mapped set to the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations via an observation operator and providing the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations via an observation operator.
Hursky discloses providing the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations via an observation operator (it is useful to know the gradient of the cost function with respect to the large number of unknown parameters so as to guide us to the minimum. This gradient can be obtained by operating on the data-model misfit by the adjoint of the forward problem operator … the adjoint operator can be derived by applying variational techniques to minimize an objective function, p.608).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lavely in view of Hursky to provide the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations and compare the mapped set via an observation operator as known in the art to minimize an objective function to better match the real-world observations (Lavely, p.4).
With regards to Claim 9, Lavely discloses wherein the first set of ocean acoustic pressure observations is based on acoustic pressure assimilation, wherein the acoustic pressure assimilation is based on a difference between recorded pressure values and one or more modeled values (These models may be obtained as the outputs of highly sophisticated data assimilation computer codes in which models are constructed that simultaneously satisfy the constraints imposed by the equations of motion and the available data measurements e.g., both from point-based sensors and from satellites supporting various sensing modalities [0017]; the base sound speed map c.sub.0 may be generated via a maritime state estimation using data assimilation. For example, an adjoint-based method may be used where a nonlinear forward model (denoted below by M) is specified and evolves in time a maritime state vector v according to equation (21):
v(t)−M[v(t−1)]=0 (21)
where the state vector components are given by the temperature, salinity, meridional and zonal velocity components and the sea surface height and assigned according to a spatial grid.
[0076] For estimation, a least squares cost function Jo characterizing the data misfit is defined as:
J.sub.0=Σ.sub.t=1.sup.t.sup.f[d(t)−E(t)v(t)].sup.TR.sup.−1[d(t)−E(t)v(t)].sup.T (22)
where d(t) are measurements of maritime properties and E(t) is a measurement model. An extended Lagrangian function J may be defined as:
J=J.sub.0−Σ.sub.t=1.sup.t.sup.fμ.sup.T(t)(v(t)−M[v(t−1)]) (23)
[0077] Equations (22) and (23) together lead to a system of normal equations for maritime model state variables v(t) that combine measurement and dynamical constraints, according to some embodiments. The Lagrange multipliers μ(t) are the adjoint model state variables and provide the gradient of the cost function used to define initial conditions (ICs), boundary conditions (BCs), internal physical parameters, etc. [0075-0077].
With regards to Claim 10, Lavely discloses using the maritime model to as an input to a navigation system of an underwater vehicle [0013] but is silent on conducting a water-based operation based on the determined current ocean state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lavely in view of Hursky to conduct a water-based operation based on the determined current ocean state by using a navigation based on the maritime model (Their utility for a PNS therefore relies on periodic (or punctuated) reinitialization of the vehicle position estimate (e.g., via acoustic means), and the inertial measurement data can then be used to provide continuous input for navigation intermediate to acoustic fixes of position estimation, Lovely [0069]).
With regards to Claim 11, Lavely discloses causing display of the model parameters (user interface 710 may be used to graphically display various calculated parameters of maritime model 716 [0099]; manipulates and/or transforms data represented as physical quantities (for example, electronic) within the registers and/or memory units of the computer system into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the registers, memory units, or other such information storage transmission or displays of the computer system. The embodiments are not limited in this context [0104]).
However, Lavely does not specifically disclose causing display of the current ocean state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lavely in view of Hursky, in addition to displaying model parameters, display the current ocean state represented by physical quantities (Lavely [0040, 0104]).
With regards to Claims 12 and 23, Lavely in view of Hursky discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 1.
In addition, with regards to Claim 23, Lavely discloses a computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums that when executed by one or more processors cause the methodology to be carried out [0088].
With regards to Claims 13 and 24, Lavely in view of Hursky discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 2 and Claims 12 and 23, respectively.
With regards to Claims 14 and 25, Lavely in view of Hursky discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 3 and Claims 12 and 23, respectively.
With regards to Claims 15 and 26, Lavely in view of Hursky discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 4 and Claims 12 and 23, respectively.
With regards to Claims 16 and 27, Lavely in view of Hursky discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 5 and Claims 12 and 23, respectively.
With regards to Claims 20 and 31, Lavely in view of Hursky discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 9 and Claims 12 and 23, respectively.
With regards to Claims 21 and 32, Lavely in view of Hursky discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 10 and Claims 12 and 23, respectively.
With regards to Claims 22 and 33, Lavely in view of Hursky discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 11 and Claims 12 and 23, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (pp.1-2): Claims 1, 12, and 23 are the independent claims. The claims in alleged Invention II contain dependent claims 17-19 and 28-30. These claims respectively dependent from independent claims 12 and 23. Independent claims 12 and 23 however are not identified in Invention II. Applicant therefore respectfully submits that the identification of the claims in alleged Invention II is incorrect. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the Restriction Requirement is improper.
In addition, the Office alleges that claim 1 links Inventions I and II. Office Action at 3. While this may be true, because alleged Invention II contains dependent claims 17-19 and 28-30, then independent claims 12 and 23 would also link alleged Invention I and II. But, this linkage is not identified by the Office. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the Restriction Requirement is improper.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the OA (12/12/2026), Invention II claims are drawn to frequency details of the data while the Invention II lacks these features. The rejection is proper because these invention are independent and distinct and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
The Invention I includes independent Claims 1, 12, and 23 that do not require features associated with frequency data, determining forecast state based on the frequency data, corrections based on the frequency data. The Examiner also notes that Claims 12 and 23 were examined in this office action.
The Examiner further notes that the Applicant, except for the comment on independent claims 12 and 23, did not discuss any errors related to Examiner’s factual reasons to restrict (MPEP 818.01(d): “Regardless of the presence of a linking claim, a proper traverse must include a written statement of the reasons for traverse, distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error”).
Therefore, this restriction requirement is proper. The Examiner makes it final after the consideration of the Applicant' s reasons for traversal as discussed above.
Because the Applicant elected Invention I (1-5, 9-16, 20-27, and 31-33) for further examination, the remaining claims are withdrawn from consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected Invention II (Claims 6-8, 17-19, and 28-30), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 12/12/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Evan Shapiro et al. (US 12078775) discloses method for forecasting weather uses a trained machine learning model to determine the error in a weather forecast, e.g., for a selected ocean region, that integrate observations into forecasts, e.g., Kalman-filters or Adjoint models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863