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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The reference characters should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claim. Claim 13, line 11 recites “113”. The examiner recommends deleting said reference number. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a back signal information acquisition module”, “a visibility information acquisition module”, “a visibility model generation module”, “a weather information acquisition module”, “an output module”, and “a low visibility warning module” in claims 13-24, and
“a telemetry transceiving device” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. After reviewing the specification, said limitations do not recite a specific structure capable of performing the recited function (see 112b rejection below). According to the examiner’s best knowledge, said modules will be interpreted as part of a generic computer connected to a lidar or radar and a plurality of databases, and said telemetry transceiving device will be interpreted as sensors for measuring temperature and humidity.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13-24 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.
With respect to claim 13, the applicant claims “intensity of the back signal at position coordinates(s), and the position coordinates(s) are three-dimensional coordinates divided into preset unit values”. It is not clear to the examiner if the applicant use of “the position coordinates(s) are three-dimensional coordinates” is referring to position coordinates where the back signal is received or are all the position coordinates in the atmosphere three-dimensional coordinates. Paragraph 0056 discloses “the back signal information L(s) is acquired for each position coordinates(s) at all position coordinates(s)”, but that’s not what is reflected in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “intensity of the back signal for each position coordinates(s) at all position coordinates(s), wherein all the position coordinates(s) or said position coordinates are three-dimensional coordinates divided into preset unit values”.
With respect to claim 13, the applicant claims “receives a back signal” in lane 3 and later claims “a back signal” in line 8. It is not clear to the examiner if both back signals are the same or different. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as the same back signal.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the reference position” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, said limitation will be treated as “the reference coordinates (s0)”.
Claim limitation “a back signal information acquisition module”, “a visibility information acquisition module”, “a visibility model generation module”, “a weather information acquisition module”, “an output module”, “a low visibility warning module”, and “telemetry transceiving device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Fig.1 and Fig.2 show a control unit 100, which comprises all said modules, as a box connected to the transceiving device 10 and to databases 210, 220, and 230. However, Paragraph 0044 discloses that transceiving device 10 may perform the function of “a back signal information acquisition module”, or the functions may be performed by separate devices which reflects the figures. If the claim limitation is to be interpreted as the transceiving device 10, i.e. a lidar or radar, it is not clear to the examiner how a lidar or radar can receive information form a database. If the limitation “a back signal information acquisition module” is to be interpreted as separate devices, neither the figures nor the paragraphs in the specification describe what constitute a structure for said separate device or said modules or how said modules can perform the recited steps in the claim. It is not clear what structure the applicant is claiming that’s capable of acquiring back signal information, i.e. is it a sensor, an input device, an interface, or a control processing unit programmed with specific instructions to perform said specific function. Furthermore, Paragraph 0051 discloses that some of the modules shown as included in the control unit 100 may also be provided in the navigation system 20 or the mobility 30. Therefore, it is not clear to the examiner what modules are part of the transceiving device 10 or the navigation system 20 or the mobility 30, and which specific component of said navigation system 20 or the mobility 30 can perform the recited functions. The same rational applies to “a visibility information acquisition module”, “a visibility model generation module”, “a weather information acquisition module”, “an output module”, and “a low visibility warning module”. With respect to “a telemetry transceiving”, the specification and Paragraph 0064 discloses that the telemetry transceiving device may be included in the transceiving device 10 but doesn’t define or recite what it is. Is it a sensor or is it a receiver that receives information from a weather database. The transceiving device is discloses as a radar or lidar, but it is not clear if said lidar or radar are capable of remotely measuring temperature and humidity as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 13 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) acquiring back signal information (L(s)) for each position coordinates(s) within a preset three-dimensional limit range, acquiring actual visibility information at a position of the transceiving device, and generating a visibility model by using the back signal information (L(s)) for each position coordinates(s) acquired in the step (a1) as an input variable and using the visibility information acquired in the step (b1) as an output variable (Claim 13).
The limitations of acquiring and generating, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “a back signal information acquisition module”, “a visibility information acquisition module”, “a visibility model generation module” that are assumed to be a generic computer, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “modules” language, acquiring and generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating a visibility model using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “a back signal information acquisition module”, “a visibility information acquisition module”, “a visibility model generation module”. Said modules are interpreted to be a generic computer, recited at a high-level of generality, (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring and generating data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites a transceiving device that radiates electromagnetic waves in all three-dimensional directions. However, the gist of the invention is acquiring back signal information, acquiring actual visibility information and generating a visibility model. Accordingly, the additional limitation of a transceiving device that radiates electromagnetic waves in all three-dimensional directions is an insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. recited as means of gathering data for the generic computer to generate the vision model. Mere data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computer to perform both the gathering and generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. According to Hiroi US 2021/0033734 A1 discloses visibility determination using electromagnetic waves transmitted to an area around the vehicle. Accordingly, The additional limitation of a transceiving device that radiates electromagnetic waves in all three-dimensional directions is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 14-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 14 and 17 describe the transceiving device as a lidar or radar and its additional components. However, as shown above, said radar or lidar is an additional element that is used for data collection and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Claims 15-16, 18-19, 21, and 24 recite the additional steps of acquiring, computing, generating, confirming, and determining. Said steps may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and fall under the mental process. Claim 20 recites the limitation of outputting the route and claim 22 recites the limitation of warning by the output module. The examiner submits that these limitations is insignificant extra-solution activities, because it is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting the result) and amounts to mere post solution output. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere output of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Claim 23 recites a navigation system. However, said navigation system is recited at a high-level of generality and is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) Therefore, dependent claims 14-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 13.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi JP 2004157037 A (the examiner is providing an English Translation and relying upon, hence Takeshi) in view of Christianson et al US 2018/0149745 A1 (hence Christianson).
In re claim 13, Takeshi discloses a laser radar device that measures a particle concentration distribution in the atmosphere using laser light (Abstract) and teaches the following:
(a1) when the transceiving device radiates the electromagnetic waves (Paragraph 0005 “a laser radar device which irradiates a laser pulse into the atmosphere”, Fig.1, #2, and Paragraph 0010) and receives a back signal (Paragraph 0005 “scattered light of the laser pulse due to the atmosphere”, and Paragraph 0011 “The concave reflecting mirror 1c reflects scattered light b from the atmosphere taken in from the tip of the main body 1a toward the collecting mirror 1d. The condenser mirror 1d reflects the scattered light b incident from the concave reflecting mirror 1c toward the light detector 1e”), acquiring, by a back signal information acquisition module electrically connected thereto, back signal information (L(s)) for each position coordinates(s) (Paragraph 0011 “The light detector 1e receives the scattered light b and outputs a measurement signal c indicating the light intensity to the signal processing unit 4”, Paragraph 0012, and Paragraph 0016 “ the irradiation direction of the laser pulse a with respect to the atmosphere is a fan-shaped area” and “The photodetector 1e sequentially receives the scattered light b from the atmosphere in the irradiation direction”);
(b1) acquiring, by a visibility information acquisition module 113, actual visibility information at a position of the transceiving device (Paragraph 0012 “Further, the laser oscillator 3 is configured to detect the emission output of its own laser pulse a and output it to the control unit 6” and Paragraph 0017 “compares the result with a threshold value stored in advance”);
and (cl) generating, by a visibility model generation module, a visibility model by using the back signal information (L(s)) for each position coordinates(s) acquired in the step (a1) as an input variable (Paragraph 0012 “The signal processing unit 4 generates a measurement image indicating the concentration distribution of suspended particles in the atmosphere based on the measurement signal c “) and using the visibility information acquired in the step (b1) as an output variable (Paragraph 0012 “At the same time, the emission output of the laser pulse a is obtained from the control unit 6, based on the visibility of the atmosphere and the emission output of the laser pulse a” and Paragraph 0020)
However, Takeshi discloses the irradiation direction of the laser pulse a with respect to the atmosphere is a fan-shaped area (Paragraph 0016 and Fig.3) and doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
electromagnetic waves in all three dimensional directions
for each position coordinates(s) within a preset three-dimensional limit range
Nevertheless, Christianson discloses methods, devices, and systems for generating a two-dimensional weather map based on three-dimensional volumetric weather data that incorporates enhanced weather analysis techniques applied to weather radar data (Abstract) and teaches the following:
electromagnetic waves in all three dimensional directions (Paragraph 0035 “weather radar system 102 to perform repeated scans of a volume of airspace”)
for each position coordinates(s) within a preset three-dimensional limit range (Paragraph 0035 “correlate radar scan return signals with three-dimensional positions within the volume of airspace, and thereby build up three-dimensional volumetric weather radar data that corresponds to the three-dimensional volume of airspace”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Takeshi reference to include scans of a volume of airspace (i.e. a three-dimensional space), as taught by Christianson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide visibility information across two or three horizontal dimensions (Christianson, Paragraph 0047).
In re claim 14, Takeshi teaches the following:
wherein the transceiving device is (a) a Lidar device and the back signal is a backscattered signal or (b) a Radar device and the back signal is an echo signal (Paragraph 0010 “a laser radar telescope” and Paragraph 0011 “reflects the scattered”)
In re claim 16, Takeshi doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
after the step (a1), (a2) acquiring, by a weather information acquisition module, weather information on a position of the transceiving device, wherein the step (c1) includes (c2) generating, by the visibility model generation module, a visibility model by using the back signal information (L(s)) for each position coordinates(s) acquired in the step (a1) and the weather information acquired in the step (a2) as input variables and using the visibility information acquired in the step (b1) as an output variable
Nevertheless, Christianson discloses methods, devices, and systems for generating a two-dimensional weather map based on three-dimensional volumetric weather data that incorporates enhanced weather analysis techniques applied to weather radar data (Abstract) and teaches the following:
after the step (a1), (a2) acquiring, by a weather information acquisition module, weather information on a position of the transceiving device, wherein the step (c1) includes (c2) generating, by the visibility model generation module, a visibility model by using the back signal information (L(s)) for each position coordinates(s) acquired in the step (a1) and the weather information acquired in the step (a2) as input variables and using the visibility information acquired in the step (b1) as an output variable (Fig.6, #30, and Paragraph 0056 “aggregating system 150 may collect, aggregate, and redistribute enhanced weather radar mapping data from enhanced weather radar processing systems 104 from any suitable number of aircraft, and from any suitable number of other, non-aircraft data sources 30” and Paragraph 0059 “data sources 30 as shown in FIG. 6 (collectively, “weather data gathering assets 10-30,” representative of any number and variety of weather data gathering assets)”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Takeshi reference to include other data sources including weather data gathering assets, as taught by Christianson, in order to generate a two-dimensional weather map based on three-dimensional volumetric weather data that incorporates enhanced weather analysis techniques applied to weather radar data (Christianson, Abstract).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi in view of Christianson and further in view of Masonis et al US 6,404,494 B1 (hence Masonis).
In re claim 15, Takeshi discloses the following:
the step (a1) further comprises: (a11) acquiring, by the back signal information acquisition module, an intensity of the back signal included in the back signal information (L(s)) for each position coordinates(s) (Paragraph 0011 “The light detector 1e receives the scattered light b and outputs a measurement signal c indicating the light intensity to the signal processing unit 4” and Paragraph 0016 “The photodetector 1e sequentially receives the scattered light b from the atmosphere in the irradiation direction and sequentially outputs a measurement signal c indicating the light intensity of the scattered light b”)
However, Takeshi doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
(a12) computing, by the back signal information acquisition module, a light extinction coefficient, an aerosol extinction coefficient, and a polarization signal using the acquired back signal, wherein the computed light extinction coefficient, aerosol extinction coefficient, and polarization signal are included in the back signal information (L(s))
Nevertheless, Masonis discloses a method and apparatus for monitoring aerosols or particulates in a fluid, and more specifically, to a method and apparatus for monitoring the lidar ratio for particulates or aerosols in the atmosphere (Col1, Lines 14-18) and teaches the following:
(a12) computing, by the back signal information acquisition module, a light extinction coefficient (Col.6, Lines 43-52), an aerosol extinction coefficient (Col.3, Lines 48-63), and a polarization signal using the acquired back signal (Col.13, line 65 – Col.14, Line 8), wherein the computed light extinction coefficient, aerosol extinction coefficient, and polarization signal are included in the back signal information (L(s)) (Col.3, Lines 48-63, Col.6, Lines 43-52, and Col.13, line 65 – Col.14, Line 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Takeshi reference to include a light extinction coefficient, an aerosol extinction coefficient, and a polarization signal, as taught by Masonis, since it is known that a lidar ratio of the aerosol is determined as a function of the backscattering measurement, a measurement of light extinction due to total light scattering by the aerosol, and a measurement of its light absorption (Masonis, Abstract).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi in view of Christianson and further in view of Newman US 2018/0203443 A1 (hence Newman).
In re claim 17, the combination of Takeshi in view of Christianson discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the transceiving device includes a Doppler transceiving device that detects wind direction and speed and a telemetry transceiving device that remotely measures temperature and humidity, the weather information includes temperature, humidity, and wind direction and speed, and the temperature, humidity, and wind direction and wind speed are confirmed from a weather information database, or confirmed from a weather station, or confirmed from a telemetry transceiving device and a Doppler transceiving device
Nevertheless, Newman discloses systems of an electrical vehicle and operations that receive weather forecast information associated with a current geographic location of the vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the transceiving device includes a Doppler transceiving device that detects wind direction and speed (Paragraph 0092) and a telemetry transceiving device that remotely measures temperature and humidity (Paragraphs 0043 and 0102), the weather information includes temperature, humidity, and wind direction and speed (Paragraph 0020), and the temperature, humidity, and wind direction and wind speed are confirmed from a weather information database, or confirmed from a weather station, or confirmed from a telemetry transceiving device and a Doppler transceiving device (the BRI of confirmed from a telemetry transceiving device and a Doppler transceiving is reading the data from said sources, Paragraphs 0092 and 0102)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Takeshi reference to include the doppler and telemetry transceiving devices, as taught by Newman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use weather forecast information to predict the state of the atmosphere (Newman, Paragraph 0103).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stenneth et al US 2022/0391624 A1 discloses determining a state of visibility of a road object, such as a road sign, using vehicle sensor data.
Hiroi US 2021/0033734 A1 discloses a point data acquisition unit acquires a set of point data indicating reflection points obtained by an optical sensor that receives reflected light of an emitted light beam reflected at the reflection points and second point data indicating a second reflection point, which is a reflection point at which the intensity of reflected light of the given light beam is lower than that at the first reflection point and determines the density of fog based on a distribution of a distance between the first reflection point and the second reflection point concerning the point data included in the acquired set.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669