DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 5, change “the TOF device further comprising” to -the TOF
device comprising:-
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 1 and claim 16, a method) or a machine (claim 14, a TOF device), which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is
directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship/mental process. The limitations include:
determining, by the TOF device, an envelope signal indicative of an envelope of the electric echo signal; generating, by the TOF device, a first TOF estimate by processing the electric echo signal, the first TOF estimate having a first measurement accuracy value; determining, by the TOF device, an envelope signal portion of the envelope signal, prior to a final time instant corresponding to a maximum value of the envelope signal, the determination of the envelope signal portion being performed using a non-PSOA hyperparameter which is selected among a plurality of non-PSOA hyperparameters as a function of the first TOF estimate; and generating, by the TOF device, a second TOF estimate by processing the envelope signal portion by means of a Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm, PSOA, the second TOF estimate having a second measurement accuracy value greater than the first measurement accuracy value, the PSOA being optimized based on a PSOA hyperparameter set which is selected among a plurality of PSOA hyperparameter sets as a function of the first TOF estimate, wherein said time-of-flight estimate is the second TOF estimate.
The claim recites a judicial exception, namely mathematical concepts and mental processes, including processing echo signals, determining an envelope, generating a first time-of-flight (TOF) estimate, selecting a portion of the signal, and generating a refined TOF estimate using a Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm with selected hyperparameters, which collectively constitute mathematical analysis and optimization of data.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements, including a time-of-flight device configured to transmit an receive ultrasonic signals, are recited at a high level of generality and merely perform generic data acquisition and output functions, without improving the functionality of the device or any other technology; rather, the claim amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using conventional components, consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make
the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of ultrasonic sensing, envelope detection, threshold or correlation-based estimation, and PSOA-based optimization, are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, and combination of these elements yields no more than predictable results.
The claim recites a TOF device that emits and receives ultrasonic signals, which may constitute a particular machine, However, the claim does not meaningfully tie the judicial exception to the machine because the TOF device merely performs conventional signal transmission and acquisition functions, while the focus of the claimed invention is on mathematical analysis and optimization of the acquired data. Thus, the machine is used as a tool to obtain data for the abstract processing rather than as a part of an improvement to the machine itself or another technology.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not add anything which would render the claimed
invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claims merely add further limitations directed to refining the same abstract idea of signal processing and mathematical optimization recited in claim 1, without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application or providing significantly more. Specifically, the additional limitations, such as threshold or cross-correlation techniques, selecting an envelope signal portion relative to a maximum value, computing distance from a time-of-flight estimate, associating parameter sets with distance ranges, and performing calibration and parameter tuning using optimization algorithms including PSOA and differential evolution, constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional data processing and mathematical operations applied to the same underlying abstract idea. These limitations amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea and improve the accuracy of the calculated result, rather than improving the functionality of the time-of-flight device or any other technology, consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the dependent claims, individually and in combination, fail to add inventive concept under Step 2B or integrate the exception into practical application under Step 2A, and therefore do not render the claims patent-eligible.
3.2. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim
1.
Claim 14 recites a TOF device, including an ultrasonic transducer, that emits and receives ultrasonic signals, which may constitute a particular machine, However, the claim does not meaningfully tie the judicial exception to the machine because the TOF device merely performs conventional signal transmission and acquisition functions, while the focus of the claimed invention is on mathematical analysis and optimization of the acquired data. Thus, the machine is used as a tool to obtain data for the abstract processing rather than as a part of an improvement to the machine itself or another technology.
The additional element of “an ultrasonic transducer” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The sensors merely collect and communicate the data, without adding anything novel or transformative to the system itself. The act of data gathering by the sensors is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
Dependent claims 15 and 17-19, either dependent, directly or indirectly, from
claims 14 or 16, do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claims merely add further limitations directed to refining the same abstract idea of signal processing and mathematical optimization recited in claim 14 or claim 16, without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application or providing significantly more. Specifically, the additional limitations, such as threshold or cross-correlation techniques, processing the envelope signal portion using PSOA, or estimating measurement accuracy value or selecting PSPA hyperparameters sets as a function of the first TOF estimate, constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional data processing and mathematical operations applied to the same underlying abstract idea. These limitations amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea and improve the accuracy of the calculated result, rather than improving the functionality of the time-of-flight device or any other technology, consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1, 14 and 16 distinguish over the prior art of record because the closest
prior art of record Zhu et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0052253) discloses an ultrasonic transducer system in which a pulse train is transmitted and corresponding echo waveform is received and processed to determine time-of-flight (TOF) (see ¶¶ [0004]-[0005]). The system generates an electrical representation of the echo waveform and determine an envelope of the waveform (see ¶¶ [0007]-[0008] and [0026]-[0027]). Zhu et al. further teaches identifying a TOF based on when the envelope reaches a threshold value (¶¶ [0007]-[0008] and [0027]). Zhu et al. also recognizes that amplitude variations in the echo waveform can introduce timing errors (see. (¶ [0009]) and introduces improvements such as phase-based processing, including linear regression and zero-crossing estimation, to refine the TOF determination (see (¶¶ [0028]-[0034]). However, Zhu et al. fails to anticipate or render obvious a method to provide a time-of-flight, TOF, estimate, which elapses between the emission, by a TOF device, of an ultrasonic source signal and the reception, by the TOF device, of an ultrasonic echo signal returned by a target body hit by the ultrasonic source signal, the method including the steps of: determining, by the TOF device, an envelope signal portion of the envelope signal, prior to a final time instant corresponding to a maximum value of the envelope signal, the determination of the envelope signal portion being performed using a non-PSOA hyperparameter which is selected among a plurality of non-PSOA hyperparameters as a function of the first TOF estimate, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Qing-yu (CN 105319548A) discloses a method for ultrasonic time-of-flight (TOF) estimation in which an ultrasonic signal is transmitted toward a target and an echo signal is received and converted into an electrical for processing. QINGYU teaches extracting an envelope of the echo signal and generating an initial TOF estimate using conventional techniques such as threshold detection or cross-correlation. Recognizing limitations in the accuracy of these conventional approaches, QINGYU further applies a Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm to refine the TOF estimate, thereby, improving measurement accuracy. QINGYU also emphasize a two-stage estimation process in the which a TOF estimate is first obtained and then optimized using PSO.
Lu et al. [‘637] discloses a method for performing an iterative optimization of the widths of the MEMS mirrors in different rows to reduce the intensity of the plurality of side lobes of the diffraction pattern. The iterative optimization changes the widths of the MEMS mirrors and then performs a far field calculation using a Fraunhofer diffraction equation to determine an amplitude of the side lobes of the diffraction pattern. The amplitude of the side lobes is compared to a desired maximum limit. The widths of the MEMS mirrors are iteratively changed until the amplitude of the side lobes is less than or equal to the desired maximum limit. In one embodiment, the iterative optimization is a Particle Swarm Optimization.
Niri et al. [‘966] discloses a system and methods for defect detection and characterization in plate-like structures, more particularly to detect corrosion in complex plate-like structures that result in a deviation in thickness in at least a patch of the structure. The system comprises a plurality of transducers configured to be adjacent to at least a portion of a plate-like structure. A controller is coupled to the plurality of transducers. The method includes propagation of guided waves through the plate-like structure and capture of data to detect the presence of at least one defect using at least a pair of transmitting/receiving transducers based on a change in the velocity of wave transmission as compared to the velocity predicted for a pristine structure. The method also includes estimated localization, and estimation in size and change in thickness of one or more patches using at least four discrete wave transmission paths that traverse the defect by using optimization of a proposed error function to estimate based on distributed circles using a derivative free optimization-based algorithm.
Wang et al. (NPL): “Particle swarm optimization algorithm: an overview”) discloses the underlying technical framework for PSO-based refinement and parameters selection. Specifically, the NPL teaches that PSO employs a set of configurable hyperparameters, such as weight, cognitive and social coefficients, swarm size, and iteration count, and that performance and accuracy of optimization are strongly dependent on how these parameters are selected or tuned for a given problem.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights