DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed March 30, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-21, 23-29, 32-34 are currently amended. Claims 1-34 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 18 have been amended to recite “output said new radar pulse category to an analysis system to update a library of said known radar pulse categories employed to execute a model…” However, the specification does not mention or describe updating a library of known radar pulse categories. In fact, the words “update” or “library” do not appear in the specification. As such, this limitation represents new matter. Claims 2-17 and 19-34 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims 1 and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 18 recite “said unsupervised clustering excluding ones of and reducing said pool of unclassified radar pulses in said one or more new radar pulse categories.” This limitation is ambiguous as it is unclear as to what is excluded. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-17 and 19-34 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims 1 and 18.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the radar pulse categorization system does not necessarily include at least one hardware element. Claim 1 recites “said system being operable on a processor and memory.” This language does not make it clear that the system comprises/includes the processor and memory, but instead implies that the system is executed on or used by a processor and memory. As such, the system may refer to software, per se, and is therefore non-statutory.
Claims 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 18 recite checking patterns within each one of said radar pulses, as received, against any known radar pulses categories and, if said one of said radar pulses fits said known radar pulses categories, classify said one of said radar pulses according to said known radar pulses categories, otherwise adding said one of said radar pulses to a pool of unclassified radar pulses; executing, when said pool of unclassified radar pulses reaches a threshold, unsupervised clustering on said pool of unclassified radar pulses to identify any previously uncategorized clusters of radar pulses and define one or more new radar pulses categories for any of said previously uncategorized clusters of radar pulses, said unsupervised clustering excluding ones of an reducing said pool of unclassified radar pulses in said one or more new radar pulses categories; and using, if a new radar pulses category is defined for a previously uncategorized cluster of radar pulses, each of said previously uncategorized clusters of radar pulses to define a shell for which said pool of unclassified radar pulses can be checked for inclusion and assigning any of said pool of unclassified radar pulses within said shell to said new radar pulses category, said shell including a transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified radar pulses excluding noise. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that the steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally, or manually with pen and paper, check radar pulse data against known categories, classify radar pulse data, add radar pulse data to a pool of unclassified radar pulse data, execute unsupervised clustering to identify previously uncategorized clusters, define one or more radar pulse data categories, and define a shell for which radar pulse data can be checked for inclusion and assigned to said new category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of outputting said new radar pulses category to an analysis system to update a library of said known radar pulse categories is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity; while the additional element of executing a model to operate said radar system with computational efficiency based on said shell including said transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified radar pulses of said new radar pulse category represents adding the words “apply it” or mere instructions to apply the abstract idea with a generic computer. Further, the categorization being used with radar pulses associated with a radar system indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. With respect to claim 1, the processor and memory represent computer components used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitation of “outputting said categorized radar pulses to an analysis system” is recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network or presenting offers and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of “to execute a model to operate said radar system with computational efficiency based on said shell including said transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified radar pulses of said new radar pulses category” represents adding the words “apply it” or mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Further, the categorization being used with radar pulses associated with a radar system indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor and memory to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2 and 19 recite wherein said shell is defined by an equation in spherical coordinates, and inclusion of any of said pool of unclassified radar pulses within said shell is determined as a function of evaluating said equation for each of said pool of unclassified radar pulses to determine if a location thereof is within a radius defined by said equation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally evaluate an equation to determine if a location is within the radius. There are no additional elements and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3 and 20 recite wherein said shell is defined by a closed surface and inclusion of any of said pool of unclassified radar pulses within said shell is determined as a function of whether a location thereof is within said closed surface. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally determine if data is within a closed surface. There are no additional elements and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 4-7 and 21-24 recite generating a representative group of points for said shell that occupies a spatial region that encompasses said previously uncategorized clusters of radar pulses utilizing vector quantization, determining one or more distance thresholds that are a function of relative spacing between ones of said representative group of points and said pool of unclassified radar pulses within said shell, and wherein ones of said pool of unclassified radar pulses are determined to be within said shell if a distance between any said pool of unclassified radar pulses and each of points comprising said representative group of points is within a threshold associated with each of said points comprising said representative group of points. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations are that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally generate a representative group of points using vector quantization, determine distance thresholds and determine radar pulse data to be within said shell if distance is within a threshold. In view of the specification, the “means” includes one or more processors and memories. These computer components are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8-11 and 25-28 recite performing a second characterization pass on said streaming radar pulses, said second characterization pass operative to reevaluate any newly-identified clusters and inclusion of any of said pool of unclassified radar pulses therein, wherein said second characterization pass is performed periodically as said streaming radar pulses is received, wherein said second characterization pass is performed subsequent to a streaming radar pulses collection period, and wherein said second characterization pass is further operative to merge neighboring clusters into one category or split clusters that contain at least two distinct radar pulses categories. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations are that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally, and manually with the aid of pen and paper, periodically and subsequent to a radar pulses collection period, perform a second pass characterization to reevaluate newly-identified clusters and inclusion of radar pulse data therein and merge neighboring clusters or split clusters.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of receiving streaming radar pulses and a streaming radar pulses collection period are recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. With respect to claim 8, although there is no hardware recited in the claims, based on the specification, the “means” includes one or more processors and memories. These computer components are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations receiving streaming radar pulses and a streaming radar pulses collection period are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of computer components to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 12-13 and 29-30 recite wherein said threshold is a function of a rate of said streaming radar pulses and is further a function of a predefined temporal interval. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations are that they fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A user can mentally determine a threshold that is a function of a rate and a temporal interval. There are no additional elements and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 14, 15, 31, and 32 recite wherein said unsupervised clustering utilizes Delaunay triangulation and a Parzen Window Density Estimation (PWDE) defined by an equation. These limitations represent mathematical concepts. Further, the unsupervised clustering utilizing Delaunay triangulation and a Parzen Window Density Estimation (PWDE) may be performed mentally or using pen and paper, and thus also represent mental processes. There are no additional elements and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 16-17 and 33-34 recite wherein said patterns within each one of said radar pulses comprises a pulse repetition interval thereof, wherein said pulse repetition interval is used to classify each one of said radar pulses into at least one of said radar pulse categories. These limitation represent mental processes. The human mind can mentally check patterns that are pulse repetition intervals and use said pulse repetition interval to classify radar pulse data into categories. Further, the use of radar pluses and pulse repetition intervals indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements limits the identified judicial exceptions, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (radar systems) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1-12, 16-30, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulam (US 2020/0004869 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210233008 A1) (‘Gupta’), and further in view of Card et al. (US 2012/0280848 A1) (‘Card’).
With respect to claims 1 and 18, Dulam teaches a real-time data categorization system for dynamically categorizing streaming data output from a collection system, wherein said categorization system has no initial knowledge of a plurality of data categories to which ones of said data in said streaming data can be assigned, each of said plurality of data categories associated with a data cluster, said system being operable on a processor and memory (paragraph 34) configured to:
checking patterns within each one of said data, as received, against any known data categories and, if said one of said data fits said known data categories, classifying said one of said data according to said known data categories, otherwise adding said one of said data to a pool of unclassified data (attempting to classify documents/messages corresponding to existing clusters and accumulating document/messages that don’t have a matching cluster) (paragraphs 16, 18, 20 and 25);
when said pool of unclassified data reaches a threshold, executing an unsupervised clustering on said pool of unclassified data to identify any previously uncategorized clusters of data and define one or more new data categories for any of said previously uncategorized clusters of data, said unsupervised clustering excluding ones of and reducing said pool of unclassified data in said one or more new data categories (classifier 106 accumulates new documents awaiting clustering 108 until a threshold number of documents is met and then additional clusters are generated/determining whether the plurality of unclassified documents satisfies a classification trigger such as when the number of unclassified documents reaches a threshold, and then generating clusters for the unmatched documents) (paragraphs 16, 20 and 25);
if a new data category is defined for a previously uncategorized cluster of data, using each of said previously uncategorized clusters of data to define a cluster for which said pool of unclassified data can be checked for inclusion and assigning any of said pool of unclassified data within said cluster to said new data category (new or unclassified data can be checked for inclusion in new clusters and classified in new clusters) (Fig. 3, paragraphs 16, 18 and 20), said cluster including a transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified data excluding noise (paragraph 17); and,
outputting said new data category to an analysis system (error messages in each cluster are displayed grouped by cluster) (paragraph 20) employed to execute a model to operate a real system with computational efficiency based on said cluster including said transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified data of said new data category (paragraph 30).
Although Dulam teaches clustering and classifying data, Dulam does not explicitly teach each category associated with a data cluster; defining a shell for which previously unclassified data can be checked for inclusion and assigned to new category of said shell, said shell including a transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified data excluding noise; or executing a model to operate a real system based on said shell including a transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified data of said new data category.
Gupta teaches each category associated with a data cluster (paragraphs 88 and 97), and defining a shell for which previously unclassified data can be checked for inclusion and assigned to new category of said shell (Fig. 13, paragraphs 108, 119, 124 and 127), said shell including a transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified data excluding noise (paragraphs 55 and 108); and
executing a model to operate a real system based on said shell including a transformed and reduced set of said pool of unclassified data of said new data category (paragraph 120).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the clustering of Dulam to define a shell and check unclassified data for inclusion as taught by Gupta to enable an unsupervised algorithm that reduces human effort. The algorithm is capable of clustering an unbalanced data set in an unbiased manner, and is generic in nature and is not restricted by any specific type of documents/data (Gupta, paragraph 127). Further it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine known clustering techniques to perform data clustering.
Further regarding claims 1 and 18, Dulam in view of Gupta does not explicitly teach wherein said collection system is associated with a radar system; wherein the data is representative of radar pulses; or outputting new radar pulse category to update a library of said known radar pulse categories.
Card teaches wherein said collection system is associated with a radar system, wherein the data is representative of radar pulses (paragraphs 34 and 44); and
outputting new radar pulse category to update a library of said known radar pulse categories (paragraphs 43 and 58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dulam to enable classification of data captured using a radar system (Card, abstract), and further because it is obvious that any type of data points can be clustered/classified using the techniques of Dulam and Gupta. Further, it is obvious that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 2 and 19, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said shell is defined by an equation in spherical coordinates, and inclusion of any of said pool of unclassified radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) within said shell is determined as a function of evaluating said equation for each of said pool of unclassified radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) to determine if a location thereof is within a radius defined by said equation (Gupta, paragraphs 88, 108, 119 and 126).
With respect to claims 3 and 20, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said shell is defined by a closed surface and inclusion of any of said pool of unclassified radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) within said shell is determined as a function of whether a location thereof is within said closed surface (Gupta, Fig. 13, paragraphs 108 and 121).
With respect to claims 4 and 21, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches further comprising generating a representative group of points for said shell that occupies a spatial region that encompasses said previously uncategorized clusters of radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) (Gupta, paragraphs 96, 99 and 124).
With respect to claims 5 and 22, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said means for generating a representative group of points utilizing vector quantization (Gupta, paragraphs 58, 88, 112, and 117).
With respect to claims 6 and 23, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches further comprising determining one or more distance thresholds that are a function of relative spacing between ones of said representative group of points and said pool of unclassified radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) within said shell (Gupta, paragraphs 108, 119, 121, and 126).
With respect to claims 7 and 24, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein ones of said pool of unclassified radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) are determined to be within said shell if a distance between any of said pool of unclassified radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) and each of points comprising said representative group of points is within a threshold associated with each of said points comprising said representative group of points (Gupta, paragraphs 108, 119, 121, and 126).
With respect to claims 8 and 25, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches further comprising means for performing a second characterization pass on said streaming radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44), said second characterization pass operative to reevaluate any newly-identified clusters and inclusion of any of said pool of unclassified radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) therein (Dulam, paragraph 20; Gupta, paragraphs 126-127).
With respect to claims 9 and 26, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said second characterization pass is performed periodically as said streaming radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) are received (Gupta, paragraphs 59, 85 and 126-127).
With respect to claims 10 and 27, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said second characterization pass is performed subsequent to a streaming radar pulse (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) collection period (Gupta, paragraphs 59, 85, and 126-127).
With respect to claims 11 and 28, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said second characterization pass is further operative to merge neighboring clusters into one category or split clusters that contain at least two distinct radar pulse (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) categories (Gupta, paragraph 126).
With respect to claims 12 and 29, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said threshold is a function of a rate of said streaming radar pulses (Card, paragraphs 34 and 44) (Dulam, paragraphs 16 and 25).
With respect to claims 13 and 30, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said threshold is further a function of a predefined temporal interval (Dulam, paragraph 25).
With respect to claims 16 and 33, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said patterns within each one of said radar pulses comprises a pulse repetition interval thereof (Card, paragraph 30).
With respect to claims 17 and 34, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches wherein said pulse repetition interval is used to classify each one of said radar pulses into at least one of said radar pulse categories (Card, paragraphs 30, 34 and 44).
Claims 14 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulam in view of Gupta and Card as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Moroney et al. (US 20170220902 A1) (‘Moroney’).
With respect to claims 14 and 31, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches unsupervised clustering.
Dulam in view of Gupta and Card does not explicitly teach wherein said unsupervised clustering utilizes Delaunay triangulation.
Moroney teaches wherein said unsupervised clustering method utilizes Delaunay triangulation (paragraphs 15, 23, 39, and 46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dulam to use Delaunay triangulation as taught by Moroney to enable clustering in dimensional space using spatial and non-spatial data points, thereby improving the clustering ability (Moroney, abstract, paragraph 46).
Claims 15 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulam in view of Gupta and Card as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Shotton et al. (US 20160104031 A1) (‘Shotton’).
With respect to claims 15 and 32, Dulam in view of Gupta and Card teaches unsupervised clustering.
Dulam in view of Gupta and Card does not explicitly teach wherein said unsupervised clustering utilizes a Parzen Window Density Estimation (PWDE) defined by the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
72
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein ϕ is a window function, h is a window width, V is a volume of a window, n is a number of points in a data set, x is a location at which a density estimation is evaluated at, and xi are points in said data set.
Shotton teaches wherein said unsupervised clustering method utilizes a Parzen Window Density Estimation (PWDE) defined by the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
72
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein ϕ is a window function, h is a window width, V is a volume of a window, n is a number of points in a data set, x is a location at which a density estimation is evaluated at, and xi are points in said data set (paragraphs 40-41).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Dulam to use PWDW as taught by Shotton enable using a sliding window for clustering to efficiently detect peaks (Shotton, paragraph 41). Further, it is obvious that known clustering techniques may be combined to achieve predictable results of clustered data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that paragraph 43 of the present application explains the “said unsupervised clustering excluding ones of and reducing said pool of unclassified radar pulses in said one or more new radar pulse categories,” which has been rejected as indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). The examiner disagrees. The description of paragraph 43 does not define what data is being excluded. As such, the 112(b) rejection stands.
Applicant argues that the amended claims do not fall under a mathematical concept/mathematical relationship are not directed to an abstract idea, and further that the claims are integrated into a practical application and are significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner disagrees. The claim amendments are directed towards applying the invention in a radar system having radar pulse data. These features merely describe the field of use in which the abstract idea is performed, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the previously identified mental steps remain mental steps because merely claiming that the data is radar pulse data does not affect the mental steps that are performed.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 1-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
Prosecution Insights