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 .
Response to Restriction
Applicant's response filed 06/02/2026 has been entered and carefully considered.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the restriction of the Office action mailed 06/02/2026 is improper and, therefore, the restriction of that action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the first thresholds" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the estimation errors " in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the value of each first detection threshold" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the thermal noise" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the sea clutter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the first thresholds" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the value of each first detection threshold" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, this claim has no transitional phrase such as “comprising”, “consisting essentially of”, and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be readily ascertained (See MPEP 2111.03).
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected because they depend directly from claims 1 and 8.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-10 are directed to using a calculator to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for determining detection thresholds of a constant false alarm rate detection device of a sensor, the sensor being adapted to observe an environment, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment observed by the sensor, the method for determining being implemented by a calculator and comprising:
estimating parameters related to the noises affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector,
calculating first detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, the first thresholds being computed so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability,
characterizing the estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to the estimation errors, and
correcting the value of each first detection threshold in order to obtain second detection thresholds, the correcting taking into account the parameters relating to the estimation errors, the second detection thresholds being the thresholds determined for the constant false alarm rate detection device.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“estimating parameters related to the noises affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“calculating first detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, the first thresholds being computed so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability” is directed to math.
“characterizing the estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to the estimation errors” is directed to mental step of analyzing data.
“correcting the value of each first detection threshold in order to obtain second detection thresholds, the correcting taking into account the parameters relating to the estimation errors, the second detection thresholds being the thresholds determined for the constant false alarm rate detection device” is directed to math because computing the “first detection threshold” relies on statistical hypothesis testing. The goal is to set a threshold where the probability of a false alarm remains below an acceptable mathematical limit. The step of taking parameter relating to these estimation errors to correct the threshold involves statistical modeling. You calculate the variance or distribution of the error and use mathematical adjustments so the overall false alarm rate remains truly constant. Constant false alarm rate detectors use advanced statistical distributions to adaptively scale detection thresholds based on the mathematical properties of the background environment.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “calculating first detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, the first thresholds being computed so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability; correcting the value of each first detection threshold in order to obtain second detection thresholds, the correcting taking into account the parameters relating to the estimation errors, the second detection thresholds being the thresholds determined for the constant false alarm rate detection device” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“ A method for determining detection thresholds of a constant false alarm rate detection device of a sensor, the sensor being adapted to observe an environment, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment observed by the sensor, the method for determining being implemented by a calculator” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“estimating parameters related to the noises affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“calculating first detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, the first thresholds being computed so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“characterizing the estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to the estimation errors” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“correcting the value of each first detection threshold in order to obtain second detection thresholds, the correcting taking into account the parameters relating to the estimation errors, the second detection thresholds being the thresholds determined for the constant false alarm rate detection device” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely gathering data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“ A method for determining detection thresholds of a constant false alarm rate detection device of a sensor, the sensor being adapted to observe an environment, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment observed by the sensor, the method for determining being implemented by a calculator” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“estimating parameters related to the noises affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“calculating first detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, the first thresholds being computed so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“characterizing the estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to the estimation errors” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“correcting the value of each first detection threshold in order to obtain second detection thresholds, the correcting taking into account the parameters relating to the estimation errors, the second detection thresholds being the thresholds determined for the constant false alarm rate detection device” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 is similar to claim 1 but recites a calculator to implement a method comprising the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 8 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 8.
Regarding claim 2, “ wherein, the step of correcting includes, for each possible configuration of the parameter vector, the operations of: determination of the first detection thresholds that the constant false alarm rate detection device is suitable for being used taking into account the estimation errors of the estimator, and modification of the values of the first detection thresholds that the constant false alarm rate detection device is suitable for being used, taking into account the estimation errors according to the different values of the first detection thresholds determined” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 3, “wherein, the correcting step further includes an operation of calculating a best value among the first detection thresholds determined for ensuring that the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability, in order to obtain a best value obtained, and during the modification operation, each of the values of the first detection thresholds that the constant false alarm rate detection device is suitable for being used taking into account the estimation errors are replaced by the best value obtained” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the best value is the maximum of all the values determined during the determination operation” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the parameter vector includes a parameter related to the thermal noise of the sensor and a parameter related to the noise generated by the environment the sensor observes” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “wherein a parameter related to noise generated by the environment the sensor observes, characterizes the sea clutter” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, “implementing the method for determining detection thresholds of the constant false alarm rate detection device, receiving waves from the environment, and analyzing the waves received by the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to determine if the waves contain only noise, the analysis being based on the determined thresholds” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 9, “wherein detection system comprising: a sensor adapted to observe an environment, a constant false alarm rate detection device of the sensor, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment the sensor is observing, and a calculator” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 10, “a vehicle including a detection system” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-10 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/537,800 (US 20240203238). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s) as follows:
US application 18/544,718
1. A method for determining detection thresholds of a constant false alarm rate detection device of a sensor, the sensor being adapted to observe an environment, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment observed by the sensor, the method for determining being implemented by a calculator and comprising: estimating parameters related to the noises affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector, calculating first detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, the first thresholds being computed so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability, characterizing the estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to the estimation errors, and correcting the value of each first detection threshold in order to obtain second detection thresholds, the correcting taking into account the parameters relating to the estimation errors, the second detection thresholds being the thresholds determined for the constant false alarm rate detection device.
2. The method for determining according to claim 1, wherein, correcting includes, for each possible configuration of the parameter vector, the operations of: - determination of the first detection thresholds that the constant false alarm rate detection device is suitable for being used taking into account the estimation errors of the estimator, and - modification of the values of the first detection thresholds that the constant false alarm rate detection device is suitable for being used, taking into account the estimation errors according to the different values of the first detection thresholds determined.
3. The method for determining according to claim 2, wherein, the correcting further comprises an operation of calculating a best value among the first detection thresholds determined for ensuring that the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability, in order to obtain a best value obtained, and during the modification operation, each of the values of the first detection thresholds that the constant false alarm rate detection device is suitable for being used taking into account the estimation errors are replaced by the best value obtained.
4. The method for determining according to claim 3, wherein the best value is the maximum of all the values determined during the determination operation.
5. The method for determining according to claim 1, wherein the parameter vector includes a parameter related to the thermal noise of the sensor and a parameter related to the noise generated by the environment the sensor observes.
6. The method for determining according to claim 1, wherein a parameter related to noise generated by the environment the sensor observes, characterizes the sea clutter.
7. A method of observing an environment by a sensor adapted to observe the environment, the sensor being part of a detection system comprising:- a sensor adapted to observe an environment,- a constant false alarm rate detection device of the sensor, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor according to parameters related to the environment the sensor is observing, and- a calculator, the method for observing comprising:- implementing the method for determining detection thresholds of the constant false alarm rate detection device of a sensor according to claim 1; receiving waves from the environment, and- analyzing the waves received by the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to determine if the waves contain only noise, the analysis being based on the determined thresholds.
8. A calculator adapted to determine detection thresholds of a constant false alarm rate detection device of a sensor, the sensor being adapted to observe an environment, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment observed by the sensor, the calculator being adapted to:- estimate parameters related to the noise affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector,- calculate first detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, the first thresholds being computed so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability, - characterize estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to estimation errors, and - correct the value of the first detection thresholds in order to obtain second detection thresholds, said correcting taking into account the parameters relating to the estimation errors, the second detection thresholds being the thresholds determined for the constant false alarm rate detection device.
9. A detection system comprising: a sensor adapted to observe an environment, a constant false alarm rate detection device of the sensor, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment the sensor is observing, and- the calculator according to claim 8.
10. A vehicle comprising the detection system according to claim 9.
US application 18/537,800 (US 20240203238)
1. A method for measuring the performance of a constant false alarm rate detection device of a sensor, the sensor being adapted to observe an environment, the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment observed by the sensor, the method being implemented by a calculator and comprising: estimating parameters related to the noises affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector; obtaining detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device; characterizing the estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to the estimation errors; determining the value of each detection threshold suitable for being actually used by the constant false alarm detection device due to the estimation errors of estimator of the constant false alarm rate 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 for determining each detection threshold suitable for being actually used by the constant false alarm detection device; and calculating the performance of the constant false alarm detection device on the basis of said determining.
2. The method for measuring according to claim 1, wherein said calculating comprises determining the false alarm probability of the constant false alarm detection device with the determined detection thresholds.
3. The method for measuring according to claim 2, wherein, during said obtaining, a false alarm probability, named ideal false alarm probability, associated with the performance of the detection thresholds for an ideal operation of the constant false alarm detection device is also obtained, and wherein the performance is calculated as the ratio between the calculated false alarm probability and the ideal false alarm probability.
4. The method for measuring according to claim 1, wherein, during said obtaining, a false alarm probability, named ideal false alarm probability, associated with the performance of the detection thresholds for an ideal operation of the constant false alarm detection device is also obtained.
5. The method for measuring according to claim 1, wherein the parameter vector includes at least a parameter related to the thermal noise of the sensor and at least a parameter related to the noise generated by the environment the sensor observes, the at least one parameter related to the noise generated by the environment the sensor observes preferentially characterizing the sea clutter.
6. The measurement method according to claim 1, wherein, during said obtaining, the detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, are calculated so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability.
7. A method for observing an environment by a sensor adapted to observe the environment, the sensor being part of a detection system comprising: a sensor adapted to observe an environment, a constant false alarm rate detection device of the sensor provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor according to parameters related to the environment the sensor is observing, and a calculator, the method comprising: implementing the method of claim 1 for measuring the performance of the constant false alarm rate detection device of the sensor; receiving waves from the environment; analyzing the waves received by the constant false alarm rate 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 being chosen from an alarm issuing a cancellation of said analyzing, a request to reiterate said analyzing with different thresholds, or a use of another constant false alarm detection device of the sensor when such a device is present in the detection system.
8. A calculator adapted to measure the performance of a constant false alarm rate detection device of a sensor, the sensor being adapted to observe an environment, the constant false alarm rate detection device provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment observed by the sensor, the calculator being adapted to: estimate parameters related to the noise affecting the sensor, in order to obtain a parameter vector, obtain detection thresholds of the constant false alarm rate detection device, characterize estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate 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 constant false alarm detection device due to estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm 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, in order to determine each detection threshold suitable for being actually used by the constant false alarm detection device, and calculate the performance of the constant false alarm detection device on the basis of the determined detection thresholds.
9. A detection system comprising: a sensor adapted to observe an environment; a constant false alarm rate detection device of said sensor, comprising an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting said sensor according to parameters related to the environment said sensor is observing; and a calculator according to claim 8.
10. A vehicle including a detection system according to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stein (US 5,694,342).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Stein discloses a method for determining detection thresholds of a constant false alarm rate detection device (abstract: determining a threshold of a zero mean unit variance normal distribution corresponding to a predetermined false alarm probability) of a sensor (filter 24)(Col.4, lines 56-58), the sensor being adapted to observe an environment (background), the constant false alarm rate detection device being provided with an estimator adapted to determine an estimate of parameters related to noises affecting the sensor depending on parameters related to the environment observed by the sensor (e.g. Figs.1-2, Col.4, line 45-Col.5, line 5), the method for determining being implemented by a calculator and comprising:
estimating parameters related to the noises affecting the sensor (Col.4, line 45-Col.5, line 34), in order to obtain a parameter vector (e.g. Col.8, line 67-Col.9, line15),
calculating first detection thresholds for the constant false alarm rate detection device, the first thresholds being computed so that, for all possible configurations of the parameter vector, the constant false alarm rate detection device operates at a predefined false alarm probability (Col.2, lines 7-10, Col.8, line 67-Col.9, line15),
characterizing the estimation errors of the estimator of the constant false alarm rate detection device, in order to obtain parameters relating to the estimation errors e.g. Col.8, line 67-Col.9, line15), and
correcting the value of each first detection threshold in order to obtain second detection thresholds, the correcting taking into account the parameters relating to the estimation errors, the second detection thresholds being the thresholds determined for the constant false alarm rate detection device (e.g. Col.9, line 18-Col, 10, line 15).
Regarding claim 6, Stein discloses wherein a parameter related to noise generated by the environment the sensor observes, characterizes the sea clutter (e.g. Col.3, lines 34-37).
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Magnant et al. (US 2019/0346552) disclose a method for tracking targets using an airborne radar, wherein it comprises at least: a preliminary step of storing a set of tracking algorithms as a function of types of targets and of environments, each tracking algorithm being a function of a type of target in a given environment; a step of detecting signals backscattered by said targets resulting in primary detections being obtained, said tracking algorithms comprise at least one stage of filtering said primary detections and a set of tracking parameters as a function of the type of target and of the environment; said detection step being followed, for each detected target: by a step: of characterizing said detected target into types of target on the basis of said primary detections; and of analyzing the environment of said targets in order to determine in which given environment each detected target is located; a step of adapting the tracking to each detected target, said adapting being completed by selecting the tracking algorithm as a function of the type of target to which said target belongs and of the given environment in which it is located.
Chen (US 2005/0185824) discloses a system for detecting and tracking objects, comprising: at least one sensor; a receiver for receiving image data from the sensor, said image data including a reference image and a search image; and a processor for classifying the clutter in the image data to determine whether the image data includes relatively low clutter or relatively high clutter, for spot time-difference processing multiple frames of the image data when the image data includes relatively high clutter, and for detecting a moving object from the multiple frames of image data that have been spot time-difference processed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights