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 Objection
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the steps of” in line 3. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim use a definite article “the”, however, the claim 11 does not recite the claim limitation of “steps of”.
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 11-30 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.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “A method of determining a free surface elevation of a water body zone using radar and at least one drone each equipped with a sensor providing remote measurement of the free surface elevation, comprising the steps of:
constructing a free surface elevation reconstruction model relating a signal measured by the radar to the free surface elevation;
measuring with radar a signal representative of the free surface elevation of the water body zone;
performing at least one measurement during flying of the at least one drone with the at least one sensor fitted to the at least one drone at a measuring point in the water body zone;
using the at least one measurement to calibrate the free surface elevation reconstruction model; and
applying the signal representative of the free surface elevation measured at the measuring point with the radar to the calibrated free surface elevation model to determine the surface elevation at the measuring point of the water body zone.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 for claim 11).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type 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 grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 11, the steps of “constructing a free surface elevation reconstruction model relating a signal measured by the radar to the free surface elevation”; and
“calibrate the free surface elevation reconstruction model” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “determine the surface elevation at the measuring point of the water body zone” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
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 claim comprises the following additional elements:
measuring with radar a signal representative of the free surface elevation of the water body zone; performing at least one measurement during flying of the at least one drone with the at least one sensor fitted to the at least one drone at a measuring point in the water body zone; using the at least one measurement; and applying the signal representative of the free surface elevation measured at the measuring point with the radar to the calibrated free surface elevation model.
The additional element “measuring with radar a signal representative of the free surface elevation of the water body zone“ represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “performing at least one measurement during flying of the at least one drone with the at least one sensor fitted to the at least one drone at a measuring point in the water body zone”; “using the at least one measurement”; and “applying the signal representative of the free surface elevation measured at the measuring point with the radar to the calibrated free surface elevation model” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, measuring with radar a signal representative of the free surface elevation of the water body zone is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining measurement signal) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, performing at least one measurement during flying of the at least one drone with the at least one sensor fitted to the at least one drone at a measuring point in the water body zone is disclosed by “Huang et al. "A UAV-RTK Lidar System for Wave and Tide Measurements in Coastal Zones", JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 35, Published August 2018”, Abstract, Page 1558, Left, Lines 31-34; Page 1558, Right, Lines 25-30; and “Ratti US 20220090992”, [0002], [0032], [0037], [0043], FIGs. 1 and 9.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 12-30 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 11-30, the most pertinent prior arts are “Previsic et al. “In-Ocean Validation of a Deterministic Sea Wave Prediction (DSWP) System leveraging X-Band Radar to Enable Optimal Control in Wave Energy Conversion Systems"; Applied Ocean Research, ELSEVIER, published, 13 July 2021”, “Huang et al. "A UAV-RTK Lidar System for Wave and Tide Measurements in Coastal Zones", JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 35, Published August 2018”; “Eineder CA 2787896A1”; “Ratti US 20220090992”; and “Scherzinger US 20100169001”.
As to claim 11, Previsic teaches a signal measured by the radar to the free surface elevation (Previsic, Tables 1, 2, and 3);
measuring with radar a signal representative of the free surface elevation of the water body zone (Previsic, Page 4, Right, Lines 28-32 to Page 5, Right, Lines 1-2);
using the at least one measurement to calibration (Previsic, Page 4, Right, Lines 6-8 and Lines 13-14).
Huang teaches performing at least one measurement during flying of the at least one drone with the at least one sensor fitted to the at least one drone at a measuring point in the water body zone (Huang, Abstract, Page 1558, Left, Lines 31-34; Page 1558, Right, Lines 25-30).
Scherzinger teaches using the at least one measurement to calibrate a free surface elevation a model (Scherzinger, [0006], [0009], [0021]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “constructing a free surface elevation reconstruction model relating a signal measured by the radar to the free surface elevation”;
“using the at least one measurement to calibrate the free surface elevation reconstruction model”; and
“applying the signal representative of the free surface elevation measured at the measuring point with the radar to the calibrated free surface elevation model to determine the surface elevation at the measuring point of the water body zone” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 12-30 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 11.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Holak US 5175555A” teaches “A remote sensing apparatus for conducting (spaceborne) measurements of ocean geophysical parameters integrates a radar altimeter subsystem with a radiometer subsystem through the use of a shared antenna feed horn that permits each subsystem to have the same viewing aperture, so that each subsystem sees the same location on the ocean. The horn is a multiport, multifrequency horn having a throat and a tapered sidewall portion extending from the throat to the outer edge of the horn. A first sidewall port is coupled to the transmit/receive channel of the radar altimeter. A second sidewall port is coupled to a first receive channel of the radiometer, and a third sidewall port is coupled to a second receive channel of the radiometer. A throat port is coupled to a third receive channel of the radiometer. The tapered sidewall portion has a first, generally linear shape adjacent to the throat, a second, conic (elliptical) shape at its outer edge, and a third, blending shape disposed between and joining together the generally linear shape and the conic shape at the outer edge. The blending shape is preferably a sinusoidal function and serves to blend the first shape into the second shape in such a manner that the horn presents, over the entirely of the surface of the sidewall portion, an effectively continuous surface to the E plane of an electromagnetic wave emitted or received by the horn. The distance over which the sidewall portion is tapered to effect the blending function is preferably no greater than two wavelengths of the lowest frequency of electromagnetic waves emitted or received by the horn.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (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 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights