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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024 and 11/27/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims 1-12 of co-pending U.S. Application number 18/238739 (US PGPUB US 20240193856 A1). In regards to claims 1-9 of the instant application, these claims are broadened versions of corresponding claims 1-12 of U.S. Application number 18/238739, where omission of an element and its function in combination is an obvious expedient. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims 1-12 of co-pending U.S. Application number 18/870699 (US PGPUB US 20250341632 A1). In regards to claims 1-9 of the instant application, these claims are broadened version of corresponding claims 1-12 of U.S. Application number 18/870699, where omission of an element and its function in combination is an obvious expedient. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 fails to define the acronym “SAR” at its first instance in the claim. The acronym is defined later in claim 1 and should be defined at its first instance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure fails to define the acronym “SAR” at its first instance in the disclosure. The acronym is defined later in the disclosure and should be defined at its first instance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-9 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.
The term “suitable” in claims 1, 8 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” in “a complex image showing a steady state suitable for an imaging condition of a SAR image to be analyzed using a three- dimensional information” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "for each of the imaging conditions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only one imaging condition has been introduced.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the multiple SAR images to be analyzed". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only SAR image to be analyzed has been introduced.
All dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the 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 the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A signal processing system comprising:
a memory storing software instructions, and
one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions to generate a simulated SAR image, which is a complex image showing a steady state suitable for an imaging condition of a SAR image to be analyzed using a three-dimensional information, which is data with information on an intensity and a phase at a three dimensional position under the steady state reconstructed using an observed SAR image of an area taken by a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and the imaging condition of the SAR image to be analyzed.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system and therefore, is an apparatus and eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of:
“generate a simulated SAR image”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea as it is simply data processing.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of the limitation of, “which is a complex image showing a steady state suitable for an imaging condition of a SAR image to be analyzed using a three-dimensional information, which is data with information on an intensity and a phase at a three dimensional position under the steady state reconstructed using an observed SAR image of an area taken by a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and the imaging condition of the SAR image to be analyzed.”, is simply defining the data being used for the data processing.
Furthermore, the feature of “using an observed SAR image of an area taken by a synthetic aperture radar (SAR)” is an insignificant extra-solution activity as it amounts to mere data gathering.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. For example, the use of the “a memory storing software instructions” and “one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions” are elements which are well understood, routine, and conventional in the field to store and process data. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim(s) 8 and 9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 due to same analysis and rationale as independent claim 1 above where claim 8 recites a method and claim 9 recites a system.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the abstract idea and recite further the mathematical manipulation and processing of data. These limitations are considered abstract ideas which are data processing and data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-9 are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a computer readable recording medium storing a signal processing program and does not specify that the computer readable recording medium is non-transitory. According to the MPEP 2106.03, section II, "For example, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate.".
Referring back to the specification disclosed by the applicant, the specification recites in paragraph 0161, “The auxiliary memory 14 is a non-transitory tangible storage medium. Examples of non-transitory tangible storage media include a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a CD-ROM (Compact Disk Read Only Memory), a DVD-ROM (Digital Versatile Disk Read Only Memory, and semiconductor memory.”. However, the specification does not disclose that the computer readable recording medium itself is non-transitory. Therefore, claim 9 is
rejected for failing to fall under at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject
matter. Applicant can re-write claim 9 to recite a "non-transitory computer readable recording
medium" to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharp et al. (US 20210097280 A1), hereinafter Sharp.
Regarding claim 1, Sharp discloses
A signal processing system (see system processing method 700 of Fig. 7) comprising:
a memory storing software instructions (see paragraph 0112, “The mass storage unit 1616 includes a machine-readable medium 1622 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions and data structures (e.g., software) 1624 embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The instructions 1624 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 1604 and/or within the processing circuitry 1602 during execution thereof by the machine 1600, the main memory 1604 and the processing circuitry 1602 also constituting machine-readable media. One or more of the main memory 1604, the mass storage unit 1616, or other memory device can store the job data, transmitter characteristics, or other data for executing the methods discussed herein.”), and
one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions (see paragraph 0112, “within the main memory 1604 and/or within the processing circuitry 1602 during execution thereof by the machine 1600, the main memory 1604 and the processing circuitry 1602 also constituting machine-readable media.”) to
generate a simulated SAR image, which is a complex image showing a steady state suitable for an imaging condition of a SAR image to be analyzed using a three-dimensional information (see Fig. 7, generating synthetic image data which is a complex image to be analyzed using three-dimensional information (i.e. the projection of the 3D point set to the image space using 3D point set 104)), which is data with information on an intensity and a phase at a three dimensional position under the steady state reconstructed using an observed SAR image of an area taken by a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and the imaging condition of the SAR image to be analyzed (see Fig. 7, further see paragraph 0054, “At operation 708, the targetable 3D point set 104 can be projected to an image space of the image 102 to generate synthetic image data 710. The image space of the image 102 can be specified in metadata associated with image data of the image 102. The image space can be the geometry of the image, such as a look angle, focal length, orientation, the parameters of a perspective transform, the parameters and coefficients of a rational polynomial projection (e.g., XYZ-to-image and/or image-to-XYZ), or the like. The operation 708 can include altering a geometry of the image 102 to match the geoposition of the 3D point set 104.”, where the geometry of the image is “imaging condition”, further see paragraph 0060, “The operation 712 can include operating an edge-based technique on an image tile to generate an edge pixel template for the synthetic image data 710 to be correlated with the gradient of image 102. An edge pixel template can include a gradient magnitude and phase direction for each edge pixel in an image tile. The edge pixel template can include only high contrast edges (not in or adjacent to a void in the synthetic image data 710). Alternatives to edge-based correlation techniques include fast Fourier transform (FFT), or normalized cross correlation (NCC), among others.”).
Regarding claim 2, Sharp further discloses
The signal processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the one or more processors are further configured to execute the software instructions to calculate the three-dimensional information using the observed SAR image (see steps of Fig. 5 further see Fig. 7, further see paragraph 0030, “FIG. 5 illustrates, by way of example, a diagram of an embodiment of a method 500 for determining a geolocation of a selected point in a registered image. The method 500 as illustrated includes voxelizing point cloud data of a 3D point set, at operation 550; constructing a search region, at operation 552; identifying voxels intersected by the search region, at operation 554; projecting 3D points in identified voxels to image, at operation 556; determining a discrepancy for each projected 3D point, at operation 558; identifying 3D points with a discrepancy less than a threshold R.sub.USER, at operation 560; and identifying the 3D point with a discrepancy less than the threshold R.sub.USER that is closest to the image sensor, at operation 562.”, see Fig. 7, where the three-dimension information that is used to project to image space uses image 102 which is the observed SAR image).
Regarding claim 3, Sharp further discloses
The signal processing system according to claim 1, wherein
the one or more processors are further configured to execute the software instructions to detect a change occurring in an area in the SAR image to be analyzed by comparing the SAR image to be analyzed and the simulated SAR image (see Fig. 7, further see paragraph 0062, “In both registration steps, the same technique may be used to independently register each image tile. The fine registration can use a smaller tile size and a smaller search region. The operation 712 can include identifying pixels of the synthetic image data 710 corresponding to high contrast edge pixels. Identifying pixels of the synthetic image data 710 corresponding to high contrast edge pixels can include using a Sobel, Roberts, Prewitt, Laplacian, or other operator. The Sobel operator (sometimes called the Sobel-Feldman operator) is a discrete differentiation operator that computes an approximation of the gradient of an intensity image. The Sobel operator returns a gradient vector (or a norm thereof) that can be converted to a magnitude and a phase. The Roberts operator is a discrete differentiation operator that computes a sum of the squares of the differences between diagonally adjacent pixels. The Prewitt operator is similar to the Sobel operator. The operation 712 can include correlating phase and magnitude of the identified high contrast edge pixels, as a rigid group, with phase and magnitude of pixels of the image 102.”).
Regarding claim 4, Sharp further discloses
The signal processing system according to claim 3, wherein
the one or more processors are configured to execute the software instructions to detect the change by calculating a degree of similarity between the SAR image to be analyzed and the simulated SAR image (see paragraph 0078, “To compute the metric for measuring how good the correlation is at that the current offset, a computation, for each pixel in the template, of the gradient magnitude at the pixel in the image 102 corresponding to the current offset times the phase match between the gradient phase of the template pixel and the gradient phase of the image pixel. The phase match can be 90 minus the absolute difference in the two phase directions. For example, if the template phase at the pixel is 37 and the phase at the corresponding pixel in the image is 30, the absolute phase difference would be 7 and the phase match value would be 90−7=83. For cross sensor applications, the gradient can be pointing in the exact 180 degree opposite direction to the edge in the synthetic image data 710. This can be accounted for. For example, if the image 102 had a phase of 217, the absolute difference would be 187. Since the difference is greater than 90 we subtract off 180 to still get a difference of 7. The phase difference factor in the registration can be 90 minus the difference or another function of the difference. This process allows edges running in the same direction but with opposite phase to have a large phase match value. The phase match can be used to lower the weight of the contribution (in the sum) of pixels whose edge directions are very different from the template pixels. The score at each offset can be the sum over all the pixels of the template at that offset of the gradient magnitude times the phase match. The offset with the highest score can be taken to be the correct registration offset.”).
Regarding claim 5, Sharp further discloses
The signal processing system according to claim 4, wherein
the one or more processors are configured to execute the software instructions to calculate the degree of similarity using phase information indicated by the SAR image to be analyzed and phase information indicated by the simulated SAR image (see paragraph 0065, “One aspect of the method 700 is how the TPS 714 from coarse or fine registration are used to determine an offset for each tile between the synthetic image data 710 and the image 102. A synthetic image edge pixel template can be correlated as a rigid group (without rotation or scaling, only translation) with a gradient magnitude and phase of the image 102. A registration score at each possible translation offset can be a sum over all template pixels of an image gradient times a phase match. While the method 700 is tolerant to blunders in the correlation of individual tiles, an offset from the coarse registration must be calculated correctly or there is a risk of not being able to perform fine registration. Since the fine registration can use a smaller search radius, an error in the offset may cause the correct correlation location to be outside the search radius of the fine registration, therefore causing fine registration to be unable to correlate correctly. The blunder metrics, offset checking, and further details of the operations 712, 716 are discussed elsewhere herein.”, further see paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 6, Sharp further discloses
The signal processing system according to claim 5, wherein the degree of similarity is a coherence value (see paragraph 0073, “At operation 824, high contrast edges 826 of the image tile 822 are identified. The operation 824 can include using a gradient magnitude histogram and a phase histogram. A desired percentage set to a first threshold (e.g., 9%, 10%, 11%, 12%, 15%, a larger or smaller percentage, or some other percentage therebetween) for template sizes less than a specified size (e.g., 16,384 pixels (e.g., 128×128 pixels, or other number of pixels) and smaller) and a second, smaller threshold for larger templates sizes (e.g., 4%, 5%, 6%, a larger or smaller percentage, or some other percentage therebetween).”, where gradient phase is a “coherence value”, further see paragraph 0078, “To compute the metric for measuring how good the correlation is at that the current offset, a computation, for each pixel in the template, of the gradient magnitude at the pixel in the image 102 corresponding to the current offset times the phase match between the gradient phase of the template pixel and the gradient phase of the image pixel. The phase match can be 90 minus the absolute difference in the two phase directions.”).
Regarding claim 7, Sharp further discloses
The signal processing system according to claim 4, wherein
the one or more processors are configured to execute the software instructions to generate the simulated SAR image for each of the imaging conditions of the multiple SAR images to be analyzed (see Fig. 9), and
calculate the degree of similarity for each pair of the SAR image to be analyzed and the simulated SAR image over multiple pairs, and detects the change using the calculated multiple degrees of similarity (see paragraph 0091, “FIG. 9 illustrates, by way of example, grayscale image chips of an edge-based registration of an image tile. The image chips include views of a point cloud and image of a portion of Richardson, Tex. The upper row of image chips shows the tile from a synthetic image tile 822A, a gradient magnitude from a Sobel operator in image chip 934, and high contrast edge pixels selected to use in the registration in image template 830A. The Sobel gradient operator can be used to generate gradient magnitude and phase for both the synthetic image tile 822A and an image tile 932. The image tile 932 includes a proper subset of the pixels of the image 102. The lower row of images in the figure shows the image tile 932 to which to register, its Sobel gradient magnitude in image chip 938, and a registration score resulting from correlating the high contrast synthetic image edges with the gradient from the image being registered at image chip 940. The image tile 932 is larger than the synthetic image tile 822A because it must accommodate the template size of the synthetic image tile 822A plus the registration search radius (to account for error). The correlation score (at each offset) indicates that the highest correlation of the high contrast edges occurs with the center point of the synthetic image tile 822A projected to a pixel below center and right of center in the image tile 932. The process of FIG. 8 can be repeated using a tile of a smaller size and a smaller search region to get an even better correlation of the high contrast edges.”).
Regarding claim 8, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 9, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pennings et al. (US 11094114 B2) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses simulated SAR image generation which imaging conditions (see steps of Fig. 7).
Maschhoff et al. (US 20200150268 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses simulated SAR image generation which imaging conditions (see steps of Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648