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 § 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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite “a database comprising terrain type information”. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See 2173.05(b)(III). From the specification it is unclear if “terrain type” requires actual categorized “type” information, e.g. terrain types by name, or rather merely any information associated with terrain, e.g. dimensions of terrain at a given location. Note discussion in the specification for example at paragraph [0039]. If the information is intended to broadly be any information associated with terrain, it is suggested that the term “type” be removed. If it is intended that “terrain type” express a specific piece of information (e.g. the name of terrain at a particular location), it is suggested this be specifically claimed. Claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 depend on one of claims 1, 8, and 14 and are likewise indefinite.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCusker et al. (8,977,491).
Regarding claim 1, McCusker discloses a radar system configured to be installed in a vehicle, the radar system comprising: a radar antenna configured to transmit radar energy and receive reflected radar energy from the transmitted radar energy (column 5, lines 8-15);
processing circuitry configured to: receive an indication of the reflected radar energy and process the reflected radar energy to determine characteristics of the reflected radar energy (column 5, lines 16-23);
retrieve information from a database comprising terrain type information and compare the determined characteristics of the reflected radar energy to the retrieved information from the database, and based at least on the characteristics of the reflected radar energy and the comparison of the determined characteristics of the reflected radar energy to the retrieved information from the database, apportion the reflected radar energy to at least one of a ground map or a weather display (column 5, line 53- column 6, line 26).
Concerning claims 8 and 14, McCusker likewise discloses the corresponding claimed method of claim 14 and computer-readable medium of claim 8 (column 5, lines 35-41).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 15, McCusker discloses characteristics of the reflected radar return comprises one or more of: a target elevation, a relative distance from the radar system, reflectivity, relative direction, or Doppler effect (column 5, line 66- column 6, line 2).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, McCusker discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether the reflected radar energy is from a target located over a body of water (column 6, lines 45-50).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, McCusker discloses the information retrieved from the database comprises, for each terrain type, one or more of reflectivity, location, size, dimensions, or name of the terrain type (column 6, lines 3-17).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, McCusker discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to: retrieve second information from the database comprising a digital elevation model (DEM), compare the determined characteristics of the reflected radar energy to the second information; and based on the characteristics of the reflected radar energy and the comparison to the DEM, apportion the reflected radar energy to at least one of the ground map or the weather display (column 5, line 53- column 6, line 26; McCusker discloses elevation data among other terrain type information which is used for comparing and apportioning).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, McCusker discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to, based on the characteristics of the reflected radar energy, determine whether to classify the reflected radar energy as one or more of clutter, weather, or terrain (column 8, lines 10-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCusker as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Born (US 12,372,612).
Concerning claims 4, 11, and 17, McCusker does not disclose determining a sea state of the body of water in response to determining that the target is located over the body of water. Born discloses a system and method to predict radar performance, including of airborne radar (column 8, lines 58-59) in the presence of terrain and weather among other factors which affect performance (column 9, lines 50-57). Among these factors, as part of weather information Born discloses determining a sea state in response to the location of the radar (column 13, lines 18-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed with a reasonable expectation of success to determine a sea state of the body of water in response to determining that the target is located over the body of water in the system and method of McCusker, in order to predict radar performance as disclosed by Born and make operating parameter adjustments to account for sea state (Born column 13, lines 45-54).
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 14 recite(s):
controlling, by processing circuitry of radar system, a radar transmitter to transmit radar energy via a radar antenna;
receiving, by the processing circuitry, reflected radar energy from the transmitted radar energy;
processing, by the processing circuitry, the reflected radar energy to determine characteristics of the reflected radar energy;
retrieving, by the processing circuitry, information from a database comprising terrain type information;
comparing, by the processing circuitry, the determined characteristics of the reflected radar energy to the retrieved information from the database; and
based on both the characteristics of the reflected radar energy and the comparison of the determined characteristics of the reflected radar energy to the retrieved information from the database, apportioning, by the processing circuitry, the reflected radar energy to at least one of a ground map or a weather display.
Independent claim 8 recites a computer -readable storage medium having instructions for corresponding functions.
Independent claim 1 recites corresponding functions, attributable to processing circuitry.
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The steps of comparing the determined characteristics of the reflected radar energy to retrieved information from the database and apportioning the reflected radar energy to at least one of a ground map or a weather display encompass mental observations, evaluations, or judgements, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper. Thus, the claims recite mental processes, which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claims include additional elements of:
controlling, by processing circuitry of radar system, a radar transmitter to transmit radar energy via a radar antenna;
receiving, by the processing circuitry, reflected radar energy from the transmitted radar energy;
processing, by the processing circuitry, the reflected radar energy to determine characteristics of the reflected radar energy; and
retrieving, by the processing circuitry, information from a database comprising terrain type information.
These steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire reflected radar energy data with basic radar hardware in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the observation and evaluation. Similarly, simply retrieving information from a database likewise amounts to mere data gathering. The steps represent insignificant extra-solution activity and do not integrate the exception of comparing and apportioning reflected radar energy into a practical application.
Concerning the radar transmitter and antenna specifically, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III).
The claims also require the additional element of a “processing circuitry”.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, there are no details about how the steps compare and apportion are performed. The processing circuitry generally applies the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mental process) without placing any limitation on how the processor operates. The claim invokes generic computer elements as a tool for performing the recited idea rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the steps of gathering reflected radar energy data are mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown in the disclosure, is well-understood and conventional ([0002]). Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more. Similarly, generically retrieving information from a database, including one comprising terrain type information is well understood and conventional data gathering (e.g. U.S Pat. Numbers 8,977,491 or 8,098,192).
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the processing circuitry was found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Concerning claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 15, 18-19, the claims specify types of the gathered data which do not introduce any additional elements, integrate the exception into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the idea.
Concerning claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 16-18, and 20, the claims add additional mental steps to the abstract idea in the form of determinations (evaluations or judgements) or further define the comparing and apportioning steps, and do not introduce any additional elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson et al. describes aircraft radar sensor quality detection which accounts for environmental factors such as terrain and sea state. The remainder of the cited art relate to aircraft radar systems and methods which utilize terrain databases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights