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 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 1-6 are directed to a method for measuring and a method for observing, which is considered to be a process. Claims 8-9 are directed to a calculator, a detection system, and a vehicle, which are considered to be machines. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-9 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising “estimating parameters related to the noises affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector;
obtaining detection thresholds for the CFAR detection device;
characterizing estimation errors of the estimator of the CFAR detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to the estimation errors;
determining a value of each detection threshold suitable for being actually used by the CFAR detection device due to the estimation errors of the estimator of the CFAR detection device for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, in order to obtain a set of determined detection thresholds, the determining using the parameters relating to the estimation errors; and
calculating performance of the CFAR detection device on the basis of the determined detection thresholds;
receiving waves from the environment by the sensor;
analyzing the received waves by the CFAR detection device, in order to determine if the waves contain only noise; and
implementing, by the calculator, an action according to the determined performance, the action either (i) requesting to reiterate said analyzing with different thresholds, or (ii) using another CFAR detection device of the sensor when another CFAR detection device is present in the detection system” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0040]-[0130] of the instant application, teach the obtaining, characterizing, determining, and calculating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the obtaining, characterizing, and determining could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Note, the implementing step is considered to be part of the abstract idea because the additional element of step (ii) is optional. Therefore, the BRI is considered to not include the additional element.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection device of an environmental sensor, the sensor being part of a detection system which is part of a land, air or sea vehicle, the detection system comprising the sensor, the CFAR detection device provided with an estimator estimating of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to an environment sensed by the sensor” and “a calculator”. The additional elements of the constant false alarm rate detection device, the sensor, the estimator, and the calculator are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the land, air or sea vehicle is considered to be an intended environment of the CFAR detection device and are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The additional element of the sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The constant false alarm rate detection device, the estimator, and the calculator are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection device of an environmental sensor, the sensor being part of a detection system which is part of a land, air or sea vehicle, the detection system comprising the sensor, the CFAR detection device provided with an estimator estimating of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to an environment sensed by the sensor” and “a calculator” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the constant false alarm rate detection device, the sensor, the estimator, and the calculator are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the land, air or sea vehicle is considered to be an intended environment of the CFAR detection device and are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The additional element of the sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The constant false alarm rate detection device, the estimator, and the calculator are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-6 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 8 is directed to a calculator adapted to measure performance of a constant false alarm rate detection (CFAR) device of an environmental sensor, configured to “estimate parameters related to the noise affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector,
obtain detection thresholds of the CFAR detection device,
characterize estimation errors of the estimator of the CFAR detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to estimation errors,
determine the value of each detection threshold suitable for being actually used by the CFAR detection device due to estimation errors of the estimator of the CFAR detection device for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, in order to obtain a set of determined detection thresholds, the determination using the parameters relating to the estimation errors, and
calculate performance of the CFAR detection device on the basis of the determined detection thresholds” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0040]-[0130] of the instant application, teach the obtaining, characterizing, determining, and calculating to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the obtaining, characterizing, and determining could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 8 further recites the additional elements “a constant false alarm rate detection (CFAR) device of an environmental sensor, the CFAR detection device provided with an estimator estimating parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to an environment sensed by the sensor”. The additional elements of the constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection device, the sensor, the estimator, and the calculator are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The constant false alarm rate detection device, the estimator, and the calculator are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a constant false alarm rate detection (CFAR) device of an environmental sensor, the CFAR detection device provided with an estimator estimating parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to an environment sensed by the sensor” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the constant false alarm rate detection device, the sensor, the estimator, and the calculator are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The sensor system limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The constant false alarm rate detection device, the estimator, and the calculator are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected analogously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument on page 9 that the application now includes a practical application, “namely, actual operation of a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) device associated with a sensor, specifically, receiving and analyzing environmental waves, and either changing CFAR thresholds or using a different CFAR, based on performance metrics”, it is considered that the claimed “implementing, by the calculator, an action according to the determined performance, the action either (i) requesting to reiterate said analyzing with different thresholds, or (ii) using another CFAR detection device of the sensor when another CFAR detection device is present in the detection system” under the broadest reasonable interpretation includes only the processing the data again under different thresholds, which is considered to be a part of the above identified abstract idea. The claimed “using another CFAR detection device of the sensor when another CFAR detection device is present in the detection system is considered to be optional and not a required part of the claimed method. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
With respect to the argument on page 9 that the “CFAR device is not a generic calculator, but a specific signal-processing device for detection purposes, associated with thresholds and dedicated constant false alarm rate detection logic”, it is considered that the structure claimed is at a high level of generality and the processing claimed is capable of being performed on a general purpose computer. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
