DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because “a computer readable recording medium” can be a signal perse which is not one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
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: Reception means, collation means, estimation means, output means in claim 1 and 19. An alert device in claim 5, 11 and 17. An alert management device claim 5, 11, and 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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 13-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jolly et al (US 20200166607).
Regarding claim 1, 7, 13, and 19, Jolly teaches a radiowave information output device comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (para 9, “ the EW assets further comprise: at least one processor”) to: reception means for receiving receive radiowave information for a reception radiowave being a radiowave received by a radiowave sensor (para 46, “the measured identification data gathered by the scan may be compared with and/or combined with long term tracked identification data collected during information gathering efforts and used to identify the emitters present in theater 32. “), the radiowave information including identification information relating to a transmission source of the radiowave and position specification information being information to be used for estimating a position of the transmission source of the radiowave (para 46, “the measured identification data gathered by the scan may be compared with and/or combined with long term tracked identification data collected during information gathering efforts and used to identify the emitters present in theater 32. “ and para 48, “Once operator is armed with data relating to the number, type, and location of emitter, as well as the characteristics thereof, the operator may then assign a confidence level to each and every emitter present within theater 32”); execute collation in such a way as to determine whether reception meta data match with collation meta data, the reception meta data being information included in the received radiowave information and being identification information relating to the transmission source of the radiowave (para 50), the collation meta data being identification information relating to a transmission source of a known radiowave (para 10, “the one or more emitters having been previously detected in the theater; detecting electromagnetic signals originating from the one or more emitters present in the theater; communicating data from the detected electromagnetic signals originating from the one or more emitters from a receiving antenna included in the plurality of EW assets to a processor included in the plurality of EW asset”); estimate, for an unknown radiowave being the reception radiowave whose reception meta data do not match with any piece of the collation meta data, a position of a transmission source of the unknown radiowave, based on the position specification information included in the received radiowave information; and output unknown radiowave information being information relating to a position of the transmission source of the unknown radiowave (para 69, “the detection of a previously undetected emitter, which may trigger one or more steps of process 100 and/or process 200 to occur:”).
Regarding claim 2, 8, and 14 Jolly teaches the position specification information includes information relating to an arrival direction of the radiowave (para 30, “ having receiving antennas 20 spaced apart may allow discrimination of characteristics within an incoming radio signal that may indicative of the source direction and/or geolocation of the emitter producing the incoming signal”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolly as applied to claim 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Bashir (US 11310806).
Regarding claim 3, 9, and 15, Basher teaches the output means specifies a communication provider whose frequency band used in a service provided by the communication provider includes a frequency used in the unknown radiowave is specified, and outputs the unknown radiowave information is output to a notification destination of the specified communication provider (col 2, lines 5-51), and the unknown radiowave information includes information relating to a position of the transmission source of the unknown radiowave using a frequency included in a frequency band used in a service provided by the specified communication provider (col 2, lines 42-51). It would have been obvious to modify Jolly to include the output means specifies a communication provider whose frequency band used in a service provided by the communication provider includes a frequency used in the unknown radiowave is specified, and outputs the unknown radiowave information is output to a notification destination of the specified communication provider, and the unknown radiowave information includes information relating to a position of the transmission source of the unknown radiowave using a frequency included in a frequency band used in a service provided by the specified communication provider because it would help identify the unknown radio wave.
Claim(s) 4, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolly as applied to claim 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Ray (US 20180074170).
Regarding claim 4, 10, and 16, Ray teaches the output means outputs unknown radiowave information is output to display means for displaying an image, the unknown radiowave information is image information for causing the display means to display the image, and the image includes a screen item indicating a transmission source, at a position of a transmission source of the unknown radiowave on a map (para 39, “characteristics of ground-based signal emitter 8 determined by signal processing methods implemented by signal processing platform 26 are displayed on at least one of a human machine interface (HMI) and a display, including, without limitation, as a map having a grid representative of a two-dimensional physical spatial domain including the surveillable area 30”). It would have been obvious to modify Jolly to include the output means outputs unknown radiowave information is output to display means for displaying an image, the unknown radiowave information is image information for causing the display means to display the image, and the image includes a screen item indicating a transmission source, at a position of a transmission source of the unknown radiowave on a map because it would show an operator of the aircraft where an unknown signal is located.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolly as applied to claim 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Kuzdeba et al (US 20220163629).
Regarding claim 5, 11, and 17, Kuzdeba teaches the output means specifies an alert device being present within a predetermined distance from a transmission source of the unknown radiowave is specified, and-outputs the unknown radiowave information is output to a notification destination of an alert management device managing the specified alert device, and the unknown radiowave information includes identification information relating to the alert device being present within a predetermined distance from the transmission source of the unknown radiowave, and the alert device broadcasts an alert (para 21-22). It would have been obvious to modify Jolly to include the output means specifies an alert device being present within a predetermined distance from a transmission source of the unknown radiowave is specified, and-outputs the unknown radiowave information is output to a notification destination of an alert management device managing the specified alert device, and the unknown radiowave information includes identification information relating to the alert device being present within a predetermined distance from the transmission source of the unknown radiowave, and the alert device broadcasts an alert because it would alert an operator of the aircraft that an unknown signal has been located
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolly as applied to claim 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of Frank (US 20210279620).
Regarding claim 6 and 12, and 18, Frank teaches the output means refers to a correlation between information relating to a notification destination and information relating to an area is referred to specifies the notification destination belonging to the area including a position of the transmission source of the unknown radiowave is specified, and-outputs the unknown radiowave information is output to the specified notification destination (para 75 and 77). It would have been obvious to modify Jolly to include the output means refers to a correlation between information relating to a notification destination and information relating to an area is referred to specifies the notification destination belonging to the area including a position of the transmission source of the unknown radiowave is specified, and-outputs the unknown radiowave information is output to the specified notification destination because it would show an operator of the aircraft where an unknown signal is located.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights