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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application is a National Stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/010300, having an International Filing Date of March 9, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 8/28/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because amended Abstract should be on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
Figures 25-27 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example deriving coordinates of an evaluation range, deriving coordinates of a radio station, deriving an interference level, display an image. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because he steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
CLAIM ANALYSIS
STEP 1: YES. The claims meet the statutory categories.
Claims 1-3 fall within a statutory category of method.
Claims 4-7 fall within a statutory category of machine.
STEP 2A: PRONG ONE YES. The claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-7 recite a judicial exception being directed to an abstract idea.
As a representative example, take Claim 1:
An interference evaluation method executed by an interference evaluation device, the interference evaluation method comprising:
deriving coordinates of an evaluation range in a real space on a basis of a first range designated using a map;
deriving coordinates of a radio station in the real space on the basis of a position designated using the map;
deriving an interference level of a radio wave transmitted from the radio station for the evaluation range on the basis of the coordinates of the evaluation range and the coordinates of the radio station; and
displaying an image corresponding to the interference level on a display unit.
In plain language, the claim steps above in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) comprise deriving coordinates of a selection on a map, deriving interference, and displaying an image.
These steps are merely a mental process (i.e. receiving, analyzing and outputting information). Examiner notes mental process includes describe mental observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and also those performed with a pen/pencil or a general purpose computer (i.e. receiving, analyzing and outputting).
Claim 4 contains the same process steps as claim 1, performed using general purpose computer.
STEP 2A Prong Two: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claim individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in in claim 1 account for insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations merely define the intended environment (i.e. evaluation range, radio station, display unit) defined generally and are mere generic entities constitute mere data gathering and analysis recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data generally, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
STEP 2B: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “radio station”, “display unit” without any given implementation thus amount to data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to analyzing information and outputting display, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
ANALYSIS 2A Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-7
Dependent claims recite additional elements: deriving coordinates in 3D, deriving interference of selected path range, and display in 3D, as recited in claims 2 and 5; display a distribution of interference level as 3D image as recited in claims 3 and 6; and interference evaluation program as recited in claim 7.
The dependent claims further recite additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and thus amount to intended environment descriptors. Thus, the claims are mere data gathering, analyzing and outputing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, analyzing and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
ANALYSIS 2B Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-7 NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere data gathering, analyzing and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP H06209279A and Kobayashi hereinafter), in view of Anderson (US 6199032 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches an interference evaluation method executed by an interference evaluation device (Figure 1; a mobile communication simulation system), the interference evaluation method comprising:
deriving an evaluation range in a real space on a basis of a first range designated using a map (Paragraph 0037; specify the range for the position of a base station, a mouse click performs two places of lower left and upper right [to specify the range on a map]. Paragraphs 0011 and 0020; obtain map data and display map);
deriving a radio station in the real space on the basis of a position designated using the map (Paragraphs 0025 and 0035; position of a base station as base station data specified by mouse click on screen by which the map display was carried out);
deriving an interference level of a radio wave transmitted from the radio station for the evaluation range on the basis of the evaluation range and the radio station (Paragraph 0038; field intensity calculation is performed and calculation of interference between each base station); and
displaying an image corresponding to the interference level on a display unit (Paragraph 0039; display calculation result and interference area figure and display).
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach deriving coordinates of map. In an analogous art, Anderson teaches deriving coordinates of map (Col 7 Lines 12-25; a pointing device such as a mouse or other input device is used to select a location on the system map and the coordinate values for that location are stored. A cursor 558 indicates the coordinates of the currently-selected location. These coordinates define signal simulation location L. Status pane 572 indicates various other information relating to signal characteristics and the selected signal simulation location. In the example shown in FIG. 5, a power level (in milliwatts) from a first and second transmit station is displayed, along with the elevation, latitude, and longitude of the simulation location). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kobayashi and Anderson because it would avoid issues with previous approaches by providing a simulated output signal to calculate interference, and allow modifications to simulated output signal to be presented to designer for evaluation (Anderson, Background section, specifically Col 2 Lines 27-35).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Kobayashi teaches an interference evaluation device (Figure 1) comprising:
a position derivation unit, including one or more processors (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0008; data processing unit 2 that takes out the map data from the memory 1 as data for one screen and uses other data as data for each unit mesh, and the map data from the data processing unit 2);
an interference derivation unit, including one or more processors (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0008; electric field strength calculation processing section 6 for calculating an electric field strength profile for each unit mesh from the elevation data and the base station data, and for correcting the electric field strength profile based on the topographical data and the building data. Paragraph0038; field intensity calculation is performed and calculation of interference between each base station); and
an image processing unit, including one or more processors (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0008; computer graphic processing unit 3 for processing and displaying a map on the display screen 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, the combination of Kobayashi and Anderson teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4, as described above. Further, Kobayashi teaches
deriving a path range that comprises a three-dimensional (Paragraph 0021 and 0031; bird’s-eye view screen with altitude and altitude + field intensity) path in the real space on the basis of a second range designated within the first range using the map (Paragraphs 0020, 0024 and 0027; extract data map for a unit mesh 250m x 250m from simulated place for one screen for map data of 10km x 10km); and deriving the three-dimensional path on the basis of a path designated using the map (Paragraph 0021 and 0031; bird’s-eye view screen with altitude and altitude + field intensity) path in the real space on the basis of a second range designated within the first range using the map (Paragraphs 0020, 0024 and 0027; extract data map for a unit mesh 250m x 250m from simulated place for one screen for map data of 10km x 10km. Paragraph 0037; specify the range which performs positioning which is a base station), wherein deriving the interference level for the evaluation range further comprises deriving the interference level for the path range (Paragraphs 0030, 0031 and 0038; calculate result of field intensity and interference between base stations), and wherein displaying the image on the display unit further comprises displaying an image corresponding to the interference level (Paragraphs 0038 and 0039; field intensity calculation is performed, and calculation of inference between base stations are calculated, display calculation result and interference area) in the three-dimensional path on the display unit (Paragraph 0021 and 0031; bird’s-eye view screen with altitude and altitude + field intensity).
In addition, Anderson teaches deriving coordinates of path range (Col 7 Lines 12-25; a pointing device such as a mouse or other input device is used to select a location on the system map and the coordinate values for that location are stored. A cursor 558 indicates the coordinates of the currently-selected location. These coordinates define signal simulation location L. Status pane 572 indicates various other information relating to signal characteristics and the selected signal simulation location. In the example shown in FIG. 5, a power level (in milliwatts) from a first and second transmit station is displayed, along with the elevation, latitude, and longitude of the simulation location). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kobayashi and Anderson because it would avoid issues with previous approaches by providing a simulated output signal to calculate interference, and allow modifications to simulated output signal to be presented to designer for evaluation (Anderson, Background section, specifically Col 2 Lines 27-35).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, the combination of Kobayashi and Anderson teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 5, as described above. Further, Kobayashi teaches wherein displaying the image on the display unit further includes comprises displaying an interference area indicating a distribution of the interference levels on the display unit as a three-dimensional image (Paragraphs 0038 and 0039; field intensity calculation is performed, and calculation of interference between each base station, and display calculation result and interference area. Paragraphs 0021 and 0031; display screen includes field strength distribution screen, bird’s-eye view screen and section screen. Enlarged display of a designated area, bird's-eye view screen 4b (elevation, elevation + electric field strength), cross-section screen 4c (elevation between base station and designated position, electric field strength), electric field strength of designated point).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kobayashi and Anderson teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Anderson teaches an interference evaluation program for causing a computer to function as the interference evaluation device according to claim 4 (Col 3 Lines 19-22; computer-executable instructions of a computer program that runs on a personal computer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kobayashi and Anderson because it would avoid issues with previous approaches by providing a simulated output signal to calculate interference, and allow modifications to simulated output signal to be presented to designer for evaluation (Anderson, Background section, specifically Col 2 Lines 27-35).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaneko et al. (JP 2010239453 A) discloses simultaneous model that divide a placement design target area into a plurality of types of simulation units designated by placement design conditions, and calculate radio characteristics for each section and optimize maximum number of sections that satisfy a required radio characteristics based on station location design conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights