DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A2 in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it would not be a significant burden on the Office to search and examine each of the identified species, the difference between which being a polygonal reference area vs a plurality of divided reference areas. Indeed, a plurality of divided reference areas may (or may not) polygonal. See, e.g., Applicant’s Fig. 4 where dividing a polygonal reference area results in a plurality of divided polygonal reference areas.” (pages 1-2 of Applicant’s response). This is found persuasive; therefore, the restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are examined herein.
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 1-20 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claim fails to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claims 1, and similarly claims 16 and 20, what is meant and encompasses “a position” is unclear and not readily understood. What “a position” referred to is unclear. Is it a position of the target or something else?
Still regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 16 and 20, the claimed limitation of “set a tracking restriction area in which a region in which the level of the reflected wave is equal to or greater than a threshold level is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, based on the echo data” is vague and not readily understood (emphasis added). Further, how and in what manner a threshold level determined and a predetermined value determined are also unclear.
Regarding claims 2-5, and similarly claims 17-19, it is unclear and not readily understood of how and in what manner “a predetermined condition” as claimed is determined.
Regarding claims 6-8, it is unclear and not readily understood of how and in what manner “a predetermined value” as claimed is determined.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitation of “set a tracking restriction area in which a region in which the level of the reflected wave is equal to or greater than the threshold level is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, based on the echo data” is vague and not readily understood (emphasis added).
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. At most, the claimed language is simply a list of desired results and do little to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those 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 1-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite apparatus, method and product for tracking a target on the water that is accomplished through a series of mental processes. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (i.e. generic computer/processor are disclosed throughout Applicant’s disclosure). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites an apparatus. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 16 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 20 recites a computer product. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 16, and similarly claim 1 and 20, recites the steps of:
specifying a target based on the echo data;
determining a tracking restriction area in which the region in which a level of the reflected wave is equal to or greater than a threshold level is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, based on the echo data; and
tracking the target, based on the echo data in an area outside the tracking restriction area
The “specifying” step may be performed by observing and evaluating the received echo data which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “determining” step may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
The “tracking” step may be practically performed in the human mind using observation.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 16, and 20 encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-12, 15, and 17-19 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes.
Regarding claims 2-12, 15, and 17-19, the further steps of tracking restriction area and tracking the target as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 15, and 17-19 also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 16, and similarly claims 1 and 20, is the “acquiring an echo data indicating a correspondence between a position in the detection area and a level of a reflected wave reflected by the electromagnetic wave periodically transmitted through the antenna at the position” step. This limitation, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering step for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
In addition, claims 1-12 and 15-20 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (i.e. generic computer/processor disclosed throughout Applicant’s disclosure). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-12 and 15-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) and/or 35 USC 101 rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2026/0063785 discloses a target tracking apparatus for tracking a target, includes: an echo data input terminal configured to acquire echo data indicating the correspondence between the position in the detecting area and the level of reflected waves; a processing circuitry configured to: detect one or a plurality of potential tracking targets having a level of the reflected wave equal to or higher than a predetermined value based on the echo data; estimate the predicted position of the potential tracking targets in the future; set an area where the potential tracking targets to be tracked may exist, including the predicted position; select a tracking target from one or a plurality of the potential tracking targets in the area; track the selected tracking target as a tracking target. The processing circuitry may further be configured to: calculate an index value indicating fluctuation of the target; and set the area based on the index value.
US 2025/0093492 discloses a target tracking apparatus for tracking target on the water of the invention is provided using. An echo data acquiring interface is configured to acquire echo data indicating a correspondence relationship between a position in the detection area and the level of the reflected wave at which the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the antenna is reflected at the position. A target extracting unit is configured to extract a potential target based on the echo data. A fluctuation value calculator is configured to calculate a fluctuation value indicating the fluctuation of the potential target based on the acquired echo data of the potential target at each timing acquired the echo data. The tracking processor is configured to determine a target to be tracked based on the fluctuation value and track the target.
US 2020/0064459 discloses a tracking device, which may include a correction target area setting module configured to set an area in which an unnecessary echo tends to be generated based on a structure or behavior of a ship, as a correction target area, a correction target echo extracting module configured to extract a target object echo within the correction target area from a plurality of detected target object echoes, as a correction target echo, a scoring module configured to score a matching level between previous echo information on a target object echo and detected echo information on each of the target object echoes, based on the previous echo information, the detected echo information and the extraction result, and a determining module configured to determine a target object echo as a current tracking target by using the scored result.
US 10,379,202 discloses a radar apparatus capable of suitably transmitting a transmission signal according to a target object existing around the radar apparatus, and suitably displaying one of the target object therearound, a response signal of a radar beacon etc. The radar apparatus includes a determiner configured to determine one of a target object and an area, an angular range setter configured to set an angular range centering on the position of the radar apparatus to include the one of the target object and the area determined by the determiner, and a transmission signal controller configured to change a waveform of the transmission signal to be different between a direction within the angular range and a direction outside the angular range.
CN 117630907 discloses a sea level target tracking method fused by infrared imaging and millimeter wave radar, relating to the technical field of sea level environment sensing, aiming at solving the problem that the sea level target information obtained by a single sensor in the existing technology is not complete, easy to be interfered and difficult to be applied to complex and variable sea level environment. The invention uses the infrared target tracking model to extract the characteristic of the infrared target area, the model is based on the improved SiamCAR network, the backbone network uses the light MobileNetv2, the infrared target tracking model is constructed with an integrated layer composed of a pyramid module and a coordinate attention module; determining a pre-selected radar target according to the infrared target, respectively establishing an interactive multi-model Kalman filter for each pre-selected radar target, and tracking the radar target by the interactive multi-model Kalman filter; fusing the infrared tracking result with the tracking result of the millimeter wave radar, and tracking the target. It has good stability and robustness, and it is suitable for complex and variable sea scene.
CN 114202783 discloses a target tracking method based on millimeter wave radar, the method comprises: obtaining the position information of the first target, the position information of the first target is obtained by millimeter wave radar detection; according to the position information, and dividing the preset monitoring area, determining the target area to which the first target belongs, the target area is the sub-area in the monitoring area; controlling the camera of the target area to adjust the monitoring direction according to the orientation information; and adjusting the focal length according to the distance information to collect the human face image of the first target.
WO 2020/044915 discloses a technology for identifying a tracking target using a radar echo. A tracking object differentiation device comprises a statistical information generation unit and differentiation unit. The statistical information generation unit uses tracking points and positions at a plurality of times, which are obtained from echo signals, to generate tracking statistical information for the tracking points. The differentiation unit uses the tracking statistical information to differentiate the source types of echo signals for which the tracking points have been set.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights