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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 2021112660657 filed on 28 Oct 2021.
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-10, 13, 15 and 17-18 are amended.
Claims 19 – 20 are withdrawn.
Claims 21 – 24 are newly added.
Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9 – 13, 15, 17 – 18 and 21 – 24 are pending.
Response to Remarks
In view of the new drawing, the drawing objection is withdrawn.
Regarding 101, the projections of the velocity as seen by the radar are just mathematical concepts based on inherent phenomenon as would be understood by the ordinarily skilled. For example, Doppler is given by
f
d
=
2
v
cos
θ
λ
where v is the velocity vector, theta is the angle projected from v onto radar’s line-of-sight LOS and λ is wavelength and the velocity vector is the velocity as inherently seen by the radar which is inherently projected onto LOS. Using a threshold or max function to determine a peak (e.g., object) is also considered mathematical and so is sorting.
The Examiner agrees that transmitting and receiving radio waves is not a mental process – this is not an issue. The sensors are claimed at a high level of generality to collect data. Many sensors are routinely used together to collect data. See US 20180087907 A1 Para. 63, US 20120249739 A1 Para. 99, and US 20120234966 A1 Para. 52.
According to Applicant’s written description, the problem with judgement of traffic violations is that radars are usually at a fixed altitude and fixed pitch angle and are typically established in a two-dimensional plane. See Spec. Background. The Examiner has reviewed the specification and Applicant’s remarks, and the Examiner believes that the solution involves at least data gathered from a radar sensor (e.g., instantaneous pitch of the unmanned aerial vehicle) and gimbal sensor (both pitch and actual flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle). See e.g., Spec. Para. 73. The solution also includes said sensors being affixed to a dynamic platform that moves in three dimensions, e.g., unmanned aerial vehicle). See Spec. background. The improvement appears to be related to mathematical geometric relationships. A claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 1 and 9 are directed to radar mounted on an unmanned aerial vehicle to gather data including instantaneous pitch as well as a gimble to gather data including pitch and actual flight speed wherein the actual flight speed makes it presumably obvious that the gimbal too is affixed to the unmanned aerial vehicle. Thus, the combination of various sensors, various sensor data and arrangement of said sensors on an unmanned aerial vehicle that is presumably moving, (e.g., actual flight speed), is a combination that as a whole realizes a solution to the problem proposed by Applicant’s background section in the specification. The 101 rejection for claims 1 – 5 and 9 – 13, 15, 17 – 20 and 22 – 24 is withdrawn.
However, claim 7 does not appear to claim the combination or invention as a whole that integrates an improvement. New Figure 5 shows two sensors: a gimbal and a radar. The specification states “Specifically, first, the actual flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle may be synthesized and projected to the beam line-of-sight direction by using the pitch angle information of the gimbal, and then, the target absolute speed of the target to be measured along the beam line-of-sight direction may be obtained by making a difference, so that the corresponding absolute moving speed can be determined according to the target absolute speed by using the above conversion method (for example, replacing v.sub.r in the formula with the target absolute speed).” See Spec. Para. 73, emphasis added. The specification further states “a flight parameter acquisition module, configured to, acquire an actual flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle and pitch angle information of a gimbal before the determining the absolute moving speed according to the relative moving speed, and an instantaneous azimuth and an instantaneous pitch angle of the target to be measured relative to the radar; …” see Spec. Para. 117, emphasis added. As such, it appears that claim 7 is missing essential features required for the disclosed invention as a whole that integrates an improvement.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained in Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in Step 2B analysis below. The claims are directed to respective system and method claims as cited in the claims.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the features of claim 7 of determining a position, measuring relative moving speed, determining absolute moving speed; acquiring measurement parameters such as target range, target altitude, target horizontal angle, determining absolute moving speed based on instantaneous azimuth and instantaneous pitch and the equations are geometric mathematical concepts as evidenced by equations disclosed in specification. See Spec. Page 8 and claims 2 and 6 – 7.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether claims 22, 33, 36 and 41 recite additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
In addition to reciting the above-noted abstract ideas, the issue is whether the claims as a whole including various additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. In other words, do the claims as a whole produce any meaningful limits, i.e. improvement in technology?
According to Applicant’s written description, the problem with judgement of traffic violations is that radars are usually at a fixed altitude and fixed pitch angle and are typically established in a two-dimensional plane. See background. The Examiner has reviewed the specification and Applicant’s remarks, and the Examiner believes that the solution involves data gathered from a radar sensor (e.g., instantaneous pitch) and gimbal sensor (pitch and actual flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle). Solution also includes own-speed data (e.g., pitot tubes) wherein the said sensors are affixed to a dynamic platform that moves in three dimensions, e.g., drone. The improvement appears to be related to mathematical geometric relationships.
The additional features include a rada and processing. See claim 21.
Here, the radar is claimed at a high level of generality for the purpose of data gathering, including transmitting and receiving, is considered extra-solution activity. See claims 1 – 18. Dependent claim 21 claims frequency modulated continuous waves FMCW, but this is still considered data gathering at a high level regardless is continuously transmitting and receiving.
The processor(s) appear to be a general-purpose computer as shown by Applicants Figures 3 – 4 wherein the processor(s) are used to perform the mathematical calculations. See claims 9 – 18.
Algorithms that can easily be performed in the mind or by hand or with the aid of a general-purpose computer. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC. v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First. Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Even assuming an improvement exists, the claimed subject matter is still abstract because all of the features discussed supra are either abstract, e.g., mathematical, or extra-solution activity. A claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
None of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claim invention. Rather, the additional limitations are directed to data gathering and data processing which is an extra-solution activity.
Step 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, the issue is whether the claims adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, the issue is whether the ordered combination of structural features and/or steps are considered well-understand, routine and conventional or whether the ordered combination itself provides for an improvement of a particular structure. For example, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (BASCOM) provides, in summary, an example wherein the local computer, ISP server, internet computer network and controlled access network are generic computer and networking components that when taken individually do not amount to significantly more but taken together provided for an unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements that result in an improvement of filtering content thus amounting to significantly more.
Transmitting and receiving data, even with a radar, is considered extra-solution activity and also routine, well-understood and conventional as evidenced by the prior art of record thus satisfying Berkshire. Official Notice also applies. Using computers with sensors is likely the most well-understood, routine and conventional concepts in this art unit.
The invention as a whole is directed to a radar mounted on an unmanned aerial vehicle to gather data including instantaneous pitch as well as a gimble to gather data including pitch and actual flight speed wherein the actual flight speed makes it presumable that the gimbal too is affixed to the unmanned aerial vehicle. Here, the combination of various sensors, various sensor data and arrangement of said sensors on an unmanned aerial vehicle that is presumably moving, e.g., actual flight speed), is the invention as a whole being used to solve the problem presented by Applicant in the background of the specification.
However, claim 7 does not appear to claim the combination or invention as a whole as discussed supra in the response to remarks.
The dependent claims of claim 7 discussed supra further define the abstract idea in the independent claims or add limitations which recite abstract ideas similar to the ones addressed above or provide for extra-solution activity and/or intended use.
Allowable Subject Matter
1 – 5, 9 – 13, 15, 17 – 18 and 22 – 24 are allowed for reasons stated in the Non-Final dated 05/13/2026.
As of now, claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 101.
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 MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights