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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
on line 5, insert “;” after “to.”
on line 8, delete “,” and replace with “;”.
on line 12, delete “,” and replace with “;”.
on line 16, delete “,” and replace with “;”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 18 are directed to an apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium respectively (one of 4 statutory categories). The claims recite the limitations of obtaining radial velocity time series of a projectile, subtracting a center velocity of the radial velocity time series from the radial velocity time series to form a velocity variation time series, dividing the velocity variation time series into respective time intervals, estimating, for each of the time intervals of the velocity variation time series, a frequency of variation of the radial velocity of the projectile, and determining a spin of the projectile by applying one or more statistical methods to the estimated frequencies of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center frequency. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation using a series of mathematical calculations. For example, but for the “apparatus,” “processing circuitry,” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium language,” the claim encompasses a person obtaining series of observations/readings from a radar, estimating a frequency and determining a spin of a projectile from a series of mathematical calculations. The mere recitations of the apparatus to obtain, subtract, divide, estimate, and determine, or a processor arranged to perform said operations does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process and mathematical concept realm. Thus, the claims fall into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims simply recite the additional elements of an apparatus comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium. The processor and non-transitory computer readable medium are recited generically. No details are provided other than they are a processor. Therefore, the apparatus comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exemption on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generically link the use of the judicial exemption on a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in these claims do no more than automate the mental process and mathematical concept used to calculate/determine the spin of the projectile (e.g., reading the observations of the radial velocity, subtracting a center velocity from a data series, and plugging the estimated frequency of the variation of the radial velocity of the second time series into a formula for determining the spin of the projectile) using a computer as a tool. While this type of automation may minimize or eliminate the need for mentally using mathematical concepts for determining the spin of the projectile, there is no change to the radar transceiver and processor that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas. Thus, these claims cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer), and the cases discussed in MPEP 2016.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v Latric Sys., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the apparatus comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium are at best the equivalent of merely adding the word “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
Claims 2-17, and 19-34 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 18 above. Claims 2-17, and 19-34 further disclose obtaining a distribution of the estimated frequencies, extracting an estimated frequency from the distribution, identifying a local maximum in a calculated probability density function, performing low-pass filtering, using piecewise fitting of a function to the first data series, performing maximum likelihood estimation of the frequency of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile, and presenting the spin of the projectile on a display. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., performing mathematical operations of gathering data for calculation). The displaying amounts to mere post-solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the radar transceiver and the processor are at best the equivalent of merely adding the word “apply it” to the judicial exception, and, dividing, estimating, subtracting, fitting, and displaying are extra-solution activity which are considered insignificant for the reasons already stated above. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not eligible.
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 1-8, 10-25, and 27-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,184.
U.S. Application No. 18/825,793
U.S. Patent No. 12,105,184
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, the computer program being configured to cause the processing circuitry to
obtain a radial velocity time series of a projectile, wherein the radial velocity time series has been obtained from a Doppler shift in a radar signal reflected from the projectile while the projectile travels along a trajectory,
subtract a center velocity of the radial velocity time series from the radial velocity time series to form a velocity variation time series of the projectile, wherein the velocity variation time series comprises variation of radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity, divide the velocity variation time series into respective time intervals,
estimate, for each of the time intervals of the velocity variation time series, a frequency of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity, and determine a spin of the projectile, which traveled along the trajectory, by applying one or more statistical methods to the estimated frequencies of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity.
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, the computer program being configured to cause the processing circuitry to
obtain a first data series representing a radial velocity of a projectile over time in accordance with a radar signal reflected from the projectile,
subtract a center velocity of the first data series from the first data series to form a second data series representing a variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity over time,
divide the second data series into respective time intervals,
estimate, for each of the time intervals of the second data series, a frequency of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity, and determine a spin of the projectile based on the estimated frequencies of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile; wherein the computer program is configured to determine the spin by being configured to cause the processing circuitry to obtain a distribution of the estimated frequencies, and extract a final estimated frequency from the distribution; and wherein the computer program is configured to obtain the distribution by being configured to cause the processing circuitry to calculate a probability density function for the estimated frequencies, and the computer program is configured to extract the final estimated frequency by being configured to cause the processing circuitry to identify a local maximum in the probability density function as the final estimated frequency.
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 1
Claim 4
Claim 12
Claim 5
Claim 13
Claim 6
Claim 2
Claim 7
Claim 3
Claim 8
Claim 16
Claim 10
Claim 4
Claim 11
Claim 5
Claim 12
Claim 6
Claim 13
Claim 7
Claim 14
Claim 8
Claim 15
Claim 9
Claim 16
Claim 10
Claim 17
Claim 11
Claim 18. A non-transitory computer readable medium encoding instructions that cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a radial velocity time series of a projectile, wherein the radial velocity time series has been obtained from a Doppler shift in a radar signal reflected from the projectile while the projectile travels along a trajectory;
subtracting a center velocity of the radial velocity time series from the radial velocity time series to form a velocity variation time series of the projectile, wherein the velocity variation time series comprises variation of radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity;
dividing the velocity variation time series into respective time intervals;
estimating, for each of the time intervals of the velocity variation time series, a frequency of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity; and
determining a spin of the projectile, which traveled along the trajectory, by applying one or more statistical methods to the estimated frequencies of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity.
Claim 14. A non-transitory computer readable medium encoding instructions that cause a processor to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a first data series representing a radial velocity of a projectile over time in accordance with a radar signal reflected from the projectile;
subtracting a center velocity of the first data series from the first data series to form a second data series representing a variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity over time;
dividing the second data series into respective time intervals;
estimating, for each of the time intervals of the second data series, a frequency of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile around the center velocity; and
determining a spin of the projectile based on the estimated frequencies of the variation of the radial velocity of the projectile, wherein determining the spin comprises obtaining a distribution of the estimated frequencies and extracting a final estimated frequency from the distribution, and wherein obtaining the distribution comprises calculating a probability density function for the estimated frequencies, and extracting the final estimated frequency comprises identifying a local maximum in the probability density function as the final estimated frequency.
Claim 19
Claim 14
Claim 20
Claim 14
Claim 21
Claim 24
Claim 22
Claim 25
Claim 23
Claim 15
Claim 24
Claim 16
Claim 25
Claim 16
Claim 27
Claim 17
Claim 28
Claim 18
Claim 29
Claim 19
Claim 30
Claim 20
Claim 31
Claim 21
Claim 32
Claim 22
Claim 33
Claim 23
Claim 34
Claim 11
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims include all the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively (see table above showing the patent claims that correspond to the instant application claims). The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, " a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claim preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES N APPIAH can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights