DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 because:
The drawings include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 5 (Fig. 1).
Appropriate corrections to the drawings and/or specification are required.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 5-10 recites "acquire a plurality of relationships, each indicating a relationship between: weather data on a radio wave communication path between a transmitting-side antenna and a receiving-side antenna; and an optimal reception direction for the receiving-side antenna in a case of: a radio wave transmission direction of the transmitting-side antenna being a predetermined transmission direction; and the weather data". However, it is unclear why the first semicolon is there, rather than a comma, since the language following the first semicolon appears to further be describing what the relationship is between, rather than being a new limitation. It is also unclear why "; and the weather data" is there. Weather data has already been recited as part of the relationship in line 6. It is unclear what the recitation in line 10 is for. Claims 8 and 9 include similar language. The remaining claims depend upon claims 1 or 8.
Claim 1, line 6 recites "weather data on a radio wave communication path". Claim 1, line 10 recites "the weather data". Claim 1, lines 13-14 recites "weather data on a radio wave communication path". While the weather data in claim 1, line 10 is referring back to the weather data in claim 1, line 6, it is unclear what the relationship is between the weather data in claim 1, lines 13-14 and the weather data in claim 1, claim 6. The claim language does neither uses "the weather data" language to indicate that the same weather data is being used, nor "second weather data" language to indicate that other weather data is being used. In order to further examine the claim, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to other weather data, i.e., the recitations in claim 1, lines 6 and 10 are referring to past weather data, while the recitation in claim 1, lines 13-14 is referring to current weather data. Claims 8 and 9 include similar language. The remaining claims depend upon claims 1 or 8. It is noted that dependent claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 also recite "the weather data" and should be amended in conformance with claim 1, as appropriate.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicially recognized exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are directed to a device, method, and non-transitory recording medium for generating a direction calculation model based on a plurality of relationships between weather data and optimal direction reception and a machine learning technique. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by a general purpose computer (memory, processor, and non-transitory recording medium) and do not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or to another technology. The step of acquiring a plurality of relationships is extra-solution (pre-solution) activity and are very well known in the art to be common in virtually all model generation inventions using machine learning. The computational steps being performed in claim(s) 1-15 is/are merely mathematical operations being performed on a generic computer. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
ANALYSIS
Patent Ineligible Subject Matter (Claims 1-15)
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank lnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”’ Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claims 1-7 are directed to a device, which is a machine; claims 8 and 10-15 are directed to a method, which is a process; and claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium, which is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
It is determined that claim(s) 1-15 is/are directed to an abstract idea, and, particularly, to "generate, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique, a direction calculation model that, upon receiving an input of weather data on the radio wave communication path, outputs a reception direction for the receiving-side antenna, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique". Dependent claims 5-7 and 13-15 simply add more calculations, or more detail to the calculation in claim(s) 1, 8, or 9.
Mathematical formulas and computational operations fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim(s) 1-15 falls within this grouping.
Claim(s) 1-15 recite generating a direction calculating model, and outputting a reception direction [where ¶23 of applicant's specification equates outputting to calculating. Even if outputting were not interpreted as calculating, outputting would then be extrasolution activity.].
These mathematical formulas, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-15 recite(s) an abstract idea.
Furthermore, "generate, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique, a direction calculation model that, upon receiving an input of weather data on the radio wave communication path, outputs a reception direction for the receiving-side antenna, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique", as drafted, are respective processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation in the human mind.
A mere recitation of a generic computer components performing mathematical operations does not take the calculating out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claim(s) 1-15 also recites a mental process.
Therefore claim(s) 1-15 recite(s) an abstract idea, we proceed to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Here, apart from the "generate, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique, a direction calculation model that, upon receiving an input of weather data on the radio wave communication path, outputs a reception direction for the receiving-side antenna, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique", the memory, processor, and non-transitory recording medium are directed to a general purpose computer, and the only additional elements that are recited in claim(s) 1-15 is/are acquiring a plurality of relationships, which is extrasolution activity/data gathering. Even if the outputting were not interpreted as calculation, it then would be extrasolution activity. Dependent claims 2-4 and 10-12 merely add more extrasolution activity/data gathering.
The weather data and optimal reception direction merely recites information or data that can be analyzed. As such, the additional limitation is/are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this/these element(s) do/does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
It has been determined that all claim elements “are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and do not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or to another technology.” But even if the recited device, method, and non-transitory recording medium could be used in the field of directive communication, claim(s) 1-15 do/does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the generating of a direction calculation model and the judicial exception to the field of directive communication.
Claim(s) 1-15 recite(s) no particular technological field or field of use. Accordingly, the language itself of claim(s) 1-15 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Additionally claim(s) 1-15 does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the Specification indicates that the computer system, etc. can be generic devices. Absent evidence to the contrary, claim(s) 1-15 merely uses a computer system that includes generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
It is noted that there is no recitation in any of the claims of a practical application, such as adjusting the antenna element weights of an antenna array, based on a direction calculated using the direction calculation model.
Since the additional element(s) in claim(s) 1-15 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept.”
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As noted, for Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
As set forth above it has been concluded that claim(s) 1-15 do/does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim(s) 1-15 (i.e., the claim element in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Apart from the limitations that recite an abstract idea, the additional element(s) in claim(s) 1-15 is/are acquiring a plurality of relationships, which merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Also, the device, method, and non-transitory recording medium recited in claim(s) 1-15 merely uses a computer system including generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea using generic computer components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-15 fails to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
See also https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility , particularly the link to "The 2024 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update)" and the link to "2024 AI Examples 47 through 49".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien (WO 2019/199326 A1) in view of Shi (US 2020/0322812 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Chien discloses an antenna direction calculation device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (110, Fig. 1; 326, Fig. 3; ¶25); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (108, Fig. 1; 308, Fig. 3) to:
acquire a plurality of relationships, each indicating a relationship between: weather data on a radio wave communication path between a transmitting-side antenna and a receiving-side antenna; and an optimal reception direction for the receiving-side antenna; and the weather data (112, 116, Fig. 1; 328, Fig. 3; 428, Fig. 4; ¶20; ¶32; ¶35; ¶38, sentence 1) [where the device of Chien may be included in a base station, and where the transmitting-side antenna and a receiving-side antenna may be used in 5G communication (¶10; ¶19-20; ¶88; ¶98)]; and
generate, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique, a direction calculation model that, upon receiving an input of weather data on the radio wave communication path, outputs a reception direction for the receiving-side antenna, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique (¶38, sentence 2; ¶70) [where self-learning is a machine learning technique].
Chien fails to disclose a case of: a radio wave transmission direction of the transmitting-side antenna being a predetermined transmission direction.
Shi teaches a case of: a radio wave transmission direction of the transmitting-side antenna being a predetermined transmission direction (¶32-37) [where in 5G communication, the UE steers its antenna in a predetermined direction, the direction of the base station, where when the base station is receiver, the UE is transmitting].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the operation of the UE when in 5G communication.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the UE operates like a 5G UE when involved in 5G communication.
In regard to claim 8, Chien discloses a processing method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of relationships, each indicating a relationship between: weather data on a radio wave communication path between a transmitting-side antenna and a receiving-side antenna; and an optimal reception direction for the receiving-side antenna; and the weather data (112, 116, Fig. 1; 328, Fig. 3; 428, Fig. 4; ¶20; ¶32; ¶35; ¶38, sentence 1) [where the device of Chien may be included in a base station, and where the transmitting-side antenna and a receiving-side antenna may be used in 5G communication (¶10; ¶19-20; ¶88; ¶98)]; and
generating, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique, a direction calculation model that, upon receiving an input of weather data on the radio wave communication path, outputs a reception direction for the receiving-side antenna, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique (¶38, sentence 2; ¶70) [where self-learning is a machine learning technique].
Chien fails to disclose a case of: a radio wave transmission direction of the transmitting-side antenna being a predetermined transmission direction.
Shi teaches a case of: a radio wave transmission direction of the transmitting-side antenna being a predetermined transmission direction (¶32-37) [where in 5G communication, the UE steers its antenna in a predetermined direction, the direction of the base station, where when the base station is receiver, the UE is transmitting].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the operation of the UE when in 5G communication.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the UE operates like a 5G UE when involved in 5G communication.
In regard to claim 9, Chien discloses a non-transitory recording medium that stores a program that causes a computer of an antenna direction calculation device (110, Fig. 1; 326, Fig. 3; ¶25) to execute:
acquiring a plurality of relationships, each indicating a relationship between: weather data on a radio wave communication path between a transmitting-side antenna and a receiving-side antenna; and an optimal reception direction for the receiving-side antenna in a case of: a radio wave transmission direction of the transmitting-side antenna being a predetermined transmission direction; and the weather data (112, 116, Fig. 1; 328, Fig. 3; 428, Fig. 4; ¶20; ¶32; ¶35; ¶38, sentence 1) [where the device of Chien may be included in a base station, and where the transmitting-side antenna and a receiving-side antenna may be used in 5G communication (¶10; ¶19-20; ¶88; ¶98)]; and
generating, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique, a direction calculation model that, upon receiving an input of weather data on the radio wave communication path, outputs a reception direction for the receiving-side antenna, using the plurality of relationships and a machine learning technique (¶38, sentence 2; ¶70) [where self-learning is a machine learning technique].
Chien fails to disclose a case of: a radio wave transmission direction of the transmitting-side antenna being a predetermined transmission direction.
Shi teaches a case of: a radio wave transmission direction of the transmitting-side antenna being a predetermined transmission direction (¶32-37) [where in 5G communication, the UE steers its antenna in a predetermined direction, the direction of the base station, where when the base station is receiver, the UE is transmitting].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the operation of the UE when in 5G communication.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the UE operates like a 5G UE when involved in 5G communication.
In regard to claims 4 and 12, Chien further discloses the weather data includes at least one of absolute temperature, atmospheric pressure, saturated water vapor pressure, and relative humidity (¶35).
In regard to claims 5 and 13, Chien further discloses calculating a receiving direction for the receiving-side antenna, based on the weather data on the radio wave communication path and the direction calculating model (Fig. 5-6; ¶32; ¶70).
In regard to claims 6 and 14, Chien further discloses calculating a receiving direction for the receiving-side antenna, based on the weather data on the radio wave communication path and the direction calculating model that corresponds to a period indicating a current season (502, Fig. 5; 602, Fig. 6; ¶16; ¶36; ¶66).
In regard to claims 7 and 15, Chien further discloses generating the direction calculating model comprises generating the direction calculating model for each period indicating a predetermined season (114, Fig. 1; 314, Fig. 3; 414, Fig. 4; ¶16; ¶36; ¶66).
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien and Shi, as applied to claim 1 and 8, and further in view of Suter (US 3,039,355 A).
Chien and Shi fail to teach the weather data on the radio wave communication path includes a refractive index of the radio wave in a tropospheric radio wave scattering space on the radio wave communication path.
Suter teaches [determining weather data, where] the weather data on the radio wave communication path includes a refractive index of the radio wave in a tropospheric radio wave scattering space on the radio wave communication path (col. 1, lines 13-17; col. 3, lines 50-63) [where the refractive index is based on variables that are all weather data (equations 1 and 2), and where the refractive index can cause difficulty with receiving radio waves (col. 1, lines 18-45)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to compensate for the effect of the refractive index on the radio wave being received.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that difficulties caused by the refractive index are compensated for.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien and Shi, as applied to claim 1 and 8, and further in view of Gaydos (US 2020/0133250 A1).
Chien further discloses a single weather sensor (118, Fig. 1).
Chien and Shi fail to teach the weather data on the radio wave communication path further includes weather data at a plurality of sites on the radio wave communication path.
Gaydos teaches weather data on the radio wave communication path further includes weather data at a plurality of sites on the radio wave communication path [in order to produce more accurate weather measurements than is possible using a single sensor] (102, Fig. 1; ¶4; ¶8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce more accurate weather measurements.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that more accurate weather measurements will be produced.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
MAXAEO (Self-learning), which defines self-learning: "Self-learning is a type of machine learning where a model is able to learn and improve on its own, without the need for human intervention.".
Virk (Self-Learning Algorithms – History, Advancements, Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions), which teaches "Self-learning algorithms, also known as autonomous learning algorithms or unsupervised learning algorithms are a powerful and innovative approach to machine learning" (p. 312, lines 1-2).
Kim (US 2023/0046984 A1), which teaches that in 5G communication a UE and a base station will mutually align their beams using beamforming (¶4).
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (weather), which defines weather as "The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure." (definition 1).
Jiang (CN 101128029 B), which teaches over-the-horizon communication based on the refractive index of the atmosphere (¶6).
Young (KR 20190078195 A), which teaches weather data interpolated from a plurality of sensors comprising a dedicated weather sensor service/network (abstract; p. 4; p. 6-7) and available in real-time (p. 11).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights