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 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) an apparatus, method, and CRM for gathering and displaying data.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice framework Step 1, the claim falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A Prong 1, the claim recites mental processes of determining an area where an interference source may interfere with a wireless communication signal. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following mental processes:
estimate an interference area being a range where an interference wave possibly interferes with the wireless communication, based on position information relating to an interference source emitting the interference wave being an acoustic wave possibly interfering with the wireless communication, topographic information relating to a periphery of the interference source, and sound speed distribution indicating a sound speed at each location under water in the periphery of the interference source;
and output interference area information including information relating to the interference area
estimating an interference area comprises the mental process of selecting particular data and making observations that can practicably be performed in the mind. Outputting interference area comprises, without the limitation being required to be performed in a computer, includes a person making an educated guess on the boundaries of an interference area.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically claim 1 further recites an interference area output apparatus configured to select and analyze data by executing an instruction. The additional limitations merely include an instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The instruction and apparatus add insignificant extra-solution activities to the mental process. Specifically, estimating an interference area and outputting the results amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. MPEP 2106.05(g) (example iii.) Considering the claim as whole, the additional limitations as a whole fail to meaningfully limit the judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under the Alice framework Step 2B analysis , the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to add significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Moreover, the additional elements amount to applying well-understood, routine, and convention activity to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05.I.A. Specifically, storing and retrieving information in memory, when it is claimed in a generic manner (i.e. at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (example iv.)
Regarding claims 2-7, the claims are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Specifically, claims 2-5 and 7 merely describe other data to be selected and manipulated when estimating the interference area and amount to further insignificant extra-solution activity, thus failing the practical application prong. The additional limitations also fail the significantly more test because it is insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional Further claim 6 merely describes generating an image on a display. the additional element fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it merely uses a display as a tool to perform the judicial exception. Further, the additional element fails to add significantly more to the judicial exception. Selecting, analyzing, and displaying data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (JP 2017181448 A, “Matsumoto”) in view of Kobayashi (US 20170371037 A1, “Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses an interference area information output apparatus being connected to a base station performing wireless communication using an acoustic wave with a wireless communication apparatus being present under water, the interference area information output apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: estimate an interference area being a range where an interference wave possibly interferes with the wireless communication, based on position information relating to an interference source emitting the interference wave being an acoustic wave possibly interfering with the wireless communication ([attached machine translation, pg. 4], acoustic sensor of the receiver determines interference level from received acoustic signals and transmits acoustic signal information to the active sonar control device. sonar control device determines whether or not transmission is possible within each area based on area information in which the transmitter and receiver are located. Acoustic sensor unit of the receiver is installed in water and receives underwater acoustic signals) ; and output interference area information including information relating to the interference area([attached machine translation, pg. 5], interference measurement unit performs frequency analysis processing on the acoustic signal information, divides it into bands and measures interference levels in each band. Interference information is output to the transmission availability determination processing unit. Processing results may be output to the display unit and display information including the processing result on a screen) .
Matsumoto fails to disclose estimate[ing] an interference area being a range where an interference wave possibly interferes with the wireless communication based on topographic information relating to a periphery of the interference source, and sound speed distribution indicating a sound speed at each location under water in the periphery of the interference source.
Kobayashi teaches estimate[ing] an interference area being a range where an interference wave possibly interferes with the wireless communication based on topographic information relating to a periphery of the interference source, and sound speed distribution indicating a sound speed at each location under water in the periphery of the interference source ([0077], signal processing unit generates a sound speed profile based on water temperature, salinity, and seafloor topography data)([0078], tracking processing unit associates data points with one another to track and predict movement of a target).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Matsumoto, to include the sound speed profile generation of Kobayashi with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately tracking target objects and their movement [0077]-[0078].
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto, as modified in view of Kobayashi teaches the interference area information output apparatus according to claim 1. Kobayashi further teaches the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to estimate the sound speed distribution, based on a water temperature in the periphery of the interference source ([0077], signal processing unit generates a sound speed profile based on water temperature, salinity, and seafloor topography data).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto, as modified in view of Kobayashi teaches the interference area information output apparatus according to claim 2. Kobayashi further teaches the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to estimate the sound speed distribution, further based on a salinity concentration in the periphery of the interference source([0077], signal processing unit generates a sound speed profile based on water temperature, salinity, and seafloor topography data).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto, as modified in view of Kobayashi teaches the interference area information output apparatus according to claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to output, as information relating to the interference area, image information for causing display means to display an image([attached machine translation, pg. 5], interference measurement unit performs frequency analysis processing on the acoustic signal information, divides it into bands and measures interference levels in each band. Interference information is output to the transmission availability determination processing unit. Processing results may be output to the display unit and display information including the processing result on a screen).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto, as modified in view of Kobayashi teaches the interference area information output apparatus according to claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to: detect the interference wave; and estimate a position of the interference source([attached machine translation, pg. 6] acoustic signal acquired from the receiver goes to interference measurement unit and interference is measured for each frequency band. Transmission permission/inhibition determination processing unit compares interference level with a threshold value and determines whether there is an influence of the interference level. Transmission permission/inhibition determination processing unit determines a search area where the transmitter can search and determines which bands of acoustic pulses can oscillate in the vicinity of the search area).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Kobayashi and Zimmerman et al. (US 20150369908 A1, “Zimmerman”).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto, as modified in view of Kobayashi teaches the interference area information output apparatus according to claim 1. Matsumoto, as modified in view of Didier fails to teach the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to estimate the interference area, based on a position of the interference source and a prediction value of the sound speed distribution.
Zimmerman teaches the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to estimate the interference area, based on a position of the interference source and a prediction value of the sound speed distribution ([0014], processing module is operable to measure depth around the sonar system. Processing module is also operable to collect a sound refraction index, which is equivalent to a sound speed profile)([0018], processing module extracts features regarding tracked targets including target speed, movement direction, shape, depth, and centroid).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Matsumoto, as modified in view of Kobayashi, to include the source positioning and speed distribution of Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of identifying, tracking, and classifying targets of interest such as an object or region that is producing interference[0018].
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto, as modified in view of Kobayashi and Zimmerman teaches the interference area information output apparatus according to claim 4. Zimmerman further teaches the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to estimate a speed of the interference source, and estimate a position of the interference source by using an estimation value of the speed([0014], processing module is operable to measure depth around the sonar system. Processing module is also operable to collect a sound refraction index, which is equivalent to a sound speed profile)([0018], processing module extracts features regarding tracked targets including target speed, movement direction, shape, depth, and centroid).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Didier (WO 2020053335 A1, “Didier”) which discloses an method for determining bathymetric profiles based on sound speed profiles
Bernecky et al. (US 20080316862 A1, “Bernecky”) which discloses a sonar-based point source localization system and method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights