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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “110”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 110a, 110b, 110c, 110d in Figure 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, 11, and 20, “amplitudes of volage” should read “amplitudes of voltage” or the like.
In claim 10, “the direction finding system does requires” should read “the direction finding system does not require” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an artificial algorithm (AI)” which is indefinite for three reasons. First, unclear why “artificial algorithm” would be abbreviated to AI. Second, it is unclear whether the artificial algorithm is part of the claimed “instructions”, such that the artificial algorithm is an aspect of the invention, or if instead the invention is merely using an artificial algorithm that is distinct from itself, i.e., the artificial algorithm is not included or sold separately. Third, the term “artificial algorithm” has no readily apparent meaning in the art, i.e., is it artificial compared to a natural algorithm? It appears that Applicant may be conflating the recited artificial algorithm with the subsequently recited “artificial intelligence algorithm”, which appears to be separate and distinct from the artificial algorithm. Claim 20 is likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “detect amplitudes of volage of the signal received by the multi-arm spiral antenna” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the signal is actually required by the claim as a method step of receiving the signal, or if the limitation is merely referring to a capability of the direction finding system. In other words, must the signal actually be received in order to infringe the claim? Dependent claims 2-10 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “determine, by the AI algorithm, a rotational offset based on the frequency and a rotational model” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear what the rotational offset means in the context, how a rotational offset would be determined, and how such a determination would be used to further calculate the direction of the source of the signal. Second, the meaning of “rotational model” is likewise unclear, as is the source of the rotational model and how a rotational model would be used to calculate the rotational offset. Claims 11 and 20 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “calculate…a direction of a source of the signal based on the rotational offset and the azimuth angle” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, because it is unclear how the direction of the signal source, i.e., the direction in 3-D space, can be calculated without the benefit of the previously estimated elevation angle. Second, because it is unclear what frame of reference is being considered for the claimed “direction”, i.e., the direction relative to what? Claims 11 and 20 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 6 recites “a first portion of training data is for training the AI, a second portion of the training data is for validation, and a third portion of the training data is used for optimization of weights used in the AI” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what the recitation is referring to and, more specifically, whether the training data is intended to be claimed as an element of the invention, i.e., a structural element of the apparatus claim. Claim 16 is likewise rejected, and dependent claims 7 and 17 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 7 recites “wherein a rotational offset in the rotational model has been determined based on actual angles of arrival of the training data and predicted angles of arrival” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if it is written as a structural limitation that has patentable weight, or whether it is written as a method step of actually determining the rotational offset. Claim 17 is likewise rejected due to the fact that it is unclear if the step is a part of the claimed method or outside the scope of the claimed method.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “estimate, by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, an elevation angle of the signal based on a frequency and the amplitudes of voltages of the signal,” “estimate, by the AI algorithm, an azimuth angle based on the frequency, the elevation angle, and the amplitudes,” “determine, by the AI algorithm, a rotational offset based on the frequency and a rotational model,” and “calculate and output, by the AI algorithm, a direction of a source of the signal based on the rotational offset and the azimuth angle” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is understood as mathematical calculations to process signal data using a mathematical algorithm, which falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the limitation of “detect amplitudes of volage of the signal received by the multi-arm spiral antenna” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 1 further includes the limitations of “a multi-arm spiral antenna configured to receive a signal; a processor; and a memory including instructions” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment or field of use of radar and direction finding systems (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering telemetry data and selection data of process plant assets and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 11 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as presented above. Claim 20 does include the additional limitations of “A non-transitory computer readable medium”, however, as generally recited are interpreted as generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, claims 6, 9, 16, and 19 recite an additional limitations of the training data and the direction, as calculated by the AI algorithm, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is understood as mathematical calculations to process signal data using a mathematical algorithm, which falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, claims 2-5, 10, and 12-15 each include limitations detailing the high-level construction of the antenna and coaxial cable connection, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment or field of use of radar and direction finding systems (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Likewise, claims 7-8 and 17-18 each include limitations of the rotational offset calculation and the signal, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment or field of use of radar and direction finding systems (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering telemetry data and selection data of process plant assets and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim 8 recites “wherein a frequency range of the signal is from 1.5 GHz to 6 GHz” which rejected the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed toward a transitory signal which is not one of the statutory categories. Claim 18 is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujahed et al. (US 2011/0304507 A1), hereinafter Mujahed, in view of Tew (US 6,559,935 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Mujahed discloses a direction finding system (abstract, regarding a radio-based navigation system) comprising:
a multi-arm spiral antenna configured to receive a signal (four-arm spiral antenna 1a; fig. 3);
a processor (digital receiver and processor 5; fig. 1); and
a memory including instructions (inherent given the description of 5 in para. [0099]) that, when executed by the processor, cause a program to:
detect amplitudes of volage of the signal received by the multi-arm spiral antenna (para. [0101], regarding the signals from the antenna feed ports 2 are synchronously down-converted by the RF-to-digital front-end 3 to an intermediate or baseband frequency and sampled; fig. 1; Examiner notes that detecting amplitudes of voltage of the signal is an inherent and well-understood part of the disclosed process);
estimate, by the program, an elevation angle of the signal based on a frequency and the amplitudes of voltages of the signal (para. [0117], regarding multi-mode DF antennas such as the four-arm spiral 1a of FIG. 3 provide angle-of-arrival information by measuring the relative gain and/or phase of two or more antenna modes; para. [0118], regarding elevation angle (θ) is related to the relative magnitudes of two or more modes whereas azimuth angle (φ) is related to the relative phases; figs. 3 and 6);
estimate, by the program, an azimuth angle based on the frequency, the elevation angle, and the amplitudes (see again paras. [0117-0118]);
determine, by the program, a rotational offset based on the frequency and a rotational model (see para. [0172], regarding the ‘initial’ angles (θ0, φ0) are ‘fixed’ relative to the global coordinate frame, while the platform continues to rotate); and
calculate and output, by the program, a direction of a source of the signal based on the rotational offset and the azimuth angle (para. [0101], regarding the radio receiver and navigation processor 5 measures an angle-of-arrival for radio-based navigation signals while simultaneously providing anti-jam protection against both narrowband and wideband interferers and estimating platform position, velocity, attitude and time 6; fig. 1).
Mujahed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the program is an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm.
However, Tew is in the field of radar vehicle detection (abstract) and teaches using an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm to process signal data for determining direction (col. 7, lines 56-67, regarding typically, the determination of co-ordinates will involve the evaluation of appropriate trigonometric expressions and the use of scalar, vector and matrix algebra; alternative implementations may employ numerical methods or a form of artificial intelligence, such as the use of an artificial neural network, to perform the bulk of the processing; in all embodiments the purpose is essentially the same; namely, to convert the photoquadrant detector signals into signals more directly expressing the position and orientation of the body 13 with respect to the receiver 2 ; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Mujahed that the program is an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm as taught by Tew, with a reasonable expectation of success, due to the fact that artificial algorithm/AI algorithms are well-known and conventionally used for processing data such as signal data.
Regarding claim 4, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein a number of arms in the multi-arm spiral antenna is greater than or equal to two (four-arm spiral antenna 1a; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein each arm of the multi-arm spiral antenna is Archimedean or log-periodic spiral antenna (para. [0112], regarding a four-arm spiral antenna 1a shown in FIG. 3 and its planar, conformal, conical or slotted variations such as a square spiral, Archimedean spiral, equiangular spiral, and the logarithmic spiral).
Regarding claim 6, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein a first portion of training data is for training the AI, a second portion of the training data is for validation, and a third portion of the training data is used for optimization of weights used in the AI (Examiner notes that the mere intent to use a particular type of training data for various tasks does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 7, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 6, and further discloses wherein a rotational offset in the rotational model has been determined based on actual angles of arrival of the training data and predicted angles of arrival (Examiner notes that the mere intent to use a particular type calculation in determining the rotational offset does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 9, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the direction indicates a direction from which the signal is transmitted (see again para. [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the direction finding system does requires use of neither mode forming circuitry, nor beam forming circuitry, nor phase compensation circuitry (Examiner notes that Mujahed does not mention mode forming circuitry, beam forming circuitry, or phase compensation circuitry).
Regarding claim 11, Mujahed disclose a method for performing direction finding with a direction finding system including a multi-arm spiral antenna (1a) configured to receive a signal (abstract), the method comprising:
detecting amplitudes of volage of the signal received by the multi-arm spiral antenna (see again para. [0101]);
estimating, by a program, an elevation angle of the signal based on a frequency and the amplitudes of voltages of the signal (see again para. [0117]);
estimating, by the program, an azimuth angle based on the frequency, the elevation angle, and the amplitudes (see again paras. [0117-0118]);
determining, by the program, a rotational offset based on the frequency and a rotational model (see again para. [0172]); and
calculating and outputting, by the program, a direction of a source of the signal based on the rotational offset and the azimuth angle (see again para. [0101]).
Mujahed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the program is an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm.
However, Tew is in the field of radar vehicle detection (abstract) and teaches using an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm to process signal data for determining direction (col. 7, lines 56-67, regarding typically, the determination of co-ordinates will involve the evaluation of appropriate trigonometric expressions and the use of scalar, vector and matrix algebra; alternative implementations may employ numerical methods or a form of artificial intelligence, such as the use of an artificial neural network, to perform the bulk of the processing; in all embodiments the purpose is essentially the same; namely, to convert the photoquadrant detector signals into signals more directly expressing the position and orientation of the body 13 with respect to the receiver 2 ; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Mujahed that the program is an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm as taught by Tew, with a reasonable expectation of success, due to the fact that artificial algorithm/AI algorithms are well-known and conventionally used for processing data such as signal data.
Regarding claim 14, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein a number of arms in the multi-arm spiral antenna is greater than or equal to two (four-arm spiral antenna 1a; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein each arm of the multi-arm spiral antenna is Archimedean or log-periodic spiral antenna (para. [0112], regarding a four-arm spiral antenna 1a shown in FIG. 3 and its planar, conformal, conical or slotted variations such as a square spiral, Archimedean spiral, equiangular spiral, and the logarithmic spiral).
Regarding claim 16, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein a first portion of training data is for training the AI, a second portion of the training data is for validation, and a third portion of the training data is used for optimization of weights used in the AI (Examiner notes that the mere intent to use a particular type of training data for various tasks does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 17, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 16, and further discloses wherein a rotational offset in the rotational model has been determined based on actual angles of arrival of the training data and predicted angles of arrival (Examiner notes that the mere intent to use a particular type calculation in determining the rotational offset does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 19, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein the direction indicates a direction from which the signal is transmitted (see again para. [0101]).
Regarding claim 20, Mujahed discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause an artificial algorithm (AI) to perform a method for performing direction finding with a direction finding system including a multi-arm spiral antenna (1a) configured to receive a signal (abstract), the method comprising:
detecting amplitudes of volage of the signal received by the multi-arm spiral antenna (see again para. [0101]);
estimating, by a program, an elevation angle of the signal based on a frequency and the amplitudes of voltages of the signal (see again para. [0117]);
estimating, by the program, an azimuth angle based on the frequency, the elevation angle, and the amplitudes (see again paras. [0117-0118]);
determining, by the program, a rotational offset based on the frequency and a rotational model (see again para. [0172]); and
calculating and outputting, by the program, a direction of a source of the signal based on the rotational offset and the azimuth angle (see again para. [0101]).
Mujahed does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the program is an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm.
However, Tew is in the field of radar vehicle detection (abstract) and teaches using an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm to process signal data for determining direction (col. 7, lines 56-67, regarding typically, the determination of co-ordinates will involve the evaluation of appropriate trigonometric expressions and the use of scalar, vector and matrix algebra; alternative implementations may employ numerical methods or a form of artificial intelligence, such as the use of an artificial neural network, to perform the bulk of the processing; in all embodiments the purpose is essentially the same; namely, to convert the photoquadrant detector signals into signals more directly expressing the position and orientation of the body 13 with respect to the receiver 2 ; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Mujahed that the program is an artificial algorithm/AI algorithm as taught by Tew, with a reasonable expectation of success, due to the fact that artificial algorithm/AI algorithms are well-known and conventionally used for processing data such as signal data.
Claims 2-3, 8, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mujahed et al. (US 2011/0304507 A1), hereinafter Mujahed, in view of Tew (US 6,559,935 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lavin et al. (US 2019/0044222 A1), hereinafter Lavin.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claims 1 and 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose the invention further comprising: a coaxial cable bundle coupled to the multi-arm spiral antenna.
However, Lavin is in the field of multi-spiral antenna arrays (abstract) and teaches a coaxial cable bundle (coaxial cables 240A, 240B; fig. 2) coupled to the multi-arm spiral antenna (multi-spiral antenna array 200; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Mujahed to include a coaxial cable bundle coupled to the multi-arm spiral antenna as taught by Lavin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the signals received by the antenna can be properly outputted (see Lavin, para. [0034]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claims 2 and 12, and further discloses wherein each coaxial cable is coupled to a respective arm of the multi-arm spiral antenna (as shown in fig. 2 of Lavin).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Mujahed as modified discloses the invention in claims 1 and 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a frequency range of the signal is from 1.5 GHz to 6 GHz.
However, Lavin teaches wherein a frequency range of the signal is from 1.5 GHz to 6 GHz (para. [0041], regarding the operating frequency range of the broadband stacked multi-spiral antenna array 300 may be approximately 0.225 gigahertz (GHz) to approximately 2.0 GHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Mujahed such that a frequency range of the signal is from 1.5 GHz to 6 GHz as taught by Lavin in order to ensure that the antenna is sufficiently capable of receiving the potential signals (see Lavin, para. [0041]).
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648