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
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 8 should end in a period, such that they are written as a proper and complete sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13, 16, 18-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a computer-implemented method of detecting ambiguities”, however the body of the claim never recites or otherwise requires the presence of a computer. Therefore, it is unclear which of the recited method steps, if any, actually require the presence and/or operation of a computer in order to be performed. Dependent claims 2-13, 16, 18-19, and 21-22 fail to cure the deficiency. Examiner notes that claims 23-24 do cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “calculating at least one phase derivative value” which is indefinite because it is unclear how many phase derivative values are actually being claimed as calculated with respect to Applicant’s disclosure. Per Applicant’s specification, “SAR data is the sum of a main signal from the area being imaged and the signal generated by the ambiguities” (para. [0055]). Furthermore, “the derivative of the phase of the main signal in azimuth and range is, respectively, a constant and zero, while the derivative of the phase of the ambiguity signal is azimuth and range variant” (para. [0061]). Therefore, it appears to be the case that four derivatives are calculated for each pixel of SAR data, no more and no less. It is unclear to claim an embodiment of the invention where, e.g., only one derivative is calculated, or many more than four derivatives could be calculated, when such embodiments are not taught by Applicant. At the very least, such a recitation it outside the scope of Applicant’s disclosure. Dependent claims 2-13, 16, 18-19, and 21-24 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “determining a threshold for the phase derivative value, and determining pixels with phase derivative values above the threshold to be ambiguous” for two reasons. First, as noted above, each pixel necessarily has four derivatives, such it is unclear which derivative is actually being considered by the method step. Second, per para. [0061], on of the derivatives of the phase of the main signal is zero, and it is unclear how a value of zero could be above a threshold that is presumably some positive number. Dependent claims 2-13, 16, 18-19, and 21-24 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 19 recites “performed on data that has been compensated for range migration” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the claimed “data” is the same SAR image data recited in claim 1, of if the data of claim 19 is new or discrete data.
Claim 22 recites “applying an amplitude threshold to the Doppler spectrum of the image data to exclude values below above the threshold resulting from ambiguous energy in the spectrum” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear if the “amplitude threshold” being applied to the Doppler spectrum is the same threshold recited in claim 1, or a new and distinct threshold. Second, it is unclear if “the threshold” is the amplitude threshold or the threshold recited in claim 1.
Claim 22 recites “substituting the excluded amplitude values to generate a modified Doppler spectrum with the ambiguous energy suppressed” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what is being substituted in for the excluded amplitude values.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 19, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radius et al.: “Phase Variant Analysis Algorithm for Azimuth Ambiguity Detection”, 2022 IEEE Radar Conference, 21 March 2022, hereinafter Radius.
Regarding claim 1, Radius discloses a computer-implemented method of detecting ambiguities in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image data (abstract) wherein the SAR data comprises, for each pixel in an image, an amplitude and a phase value (p. 1, regarding the azimuth ambiguities affect both the amplitude and phase information of the SAR data), the method comprising:
calculating at least one phase derivative value for respective pixels represented by the SAR data with respect to a spatial direction (p. 2, regarding equations 7 and 8 are calculated on the data using the Phase Derivative Value (PDV) that allows to decouple the main signal from the ambiguous signal for every pixel),
determining a threshold for the phase derivative value (p. 3, regarding the ambiguity is considered successfully identified when a minimum cluster of n ambiguous pixels are detected as ambiguities, presenting a derivative phase higher than the threshold T), and
determining pixels with phase derivative values above the threshold to be ambiguous (see again p. 3 above)
Regarding claim 2, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein calculating at least one phase derivative value comprises calculating a phase derivative value with respect to azimuth (p. 2, regarding the derivative of the main signal in azimuth and range is respectively a constant and zero, while the ambiguity phase is azimuth and range variant).
Regarding claim 3, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein calculating at least one phase derivative value comprises calculating a phase derivative value with respect to range (see again p. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein calculating at least one phase derivative value comprises calculating phase derivative values with respect to range and azimuth (p. 3, the azimuth derivative phase and the range derivative phase are calculated according to the disclosed equations), wherein the threshold is determined from a combination of the phase derivative values (p. 3, regarding the ambiguity map is obtained by multiplying the azimuth derivative phase and the range derivative phase; the ambiguity is considered successfully identified when a minimum cluster of n ambiguous pixels are detected as ambiguities, presenting a derivative phase higher than the threshold T).
Regarding claim 5, Radius discloses the invention in claim 4, and further discloses wherein the threshold is determined from the product of the phase derivative values (see again p. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the calculation of the at least one phase derivative value is performed on a subset of the image data (Examiner notes that the process disclosed by Radius will inherently tend to be performed on at least a subset of the image data, whether or not the process is performed on all of the image data).
Regarding claim 7, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention comprising filtering the image data to reduce sidelobes prior to calculating the one or more phase derivative values (p. 3, regarding a dedicated adaptive filtering is then used, to reduce the sidelobes preserving the spectrum frequencies in which the ambiguities are located).
Regarding claim 8, Radius discloses the invention in claim 7, and further discloses the invention comprising generating a Doppler spectrum of the image data in frequency space, wherein the filtering is performed on the Doppler spectrum (see steps 1 and 2 listed on p. 3)
Regarding claim 9, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the data comprises single look data (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the method is performed on data that has been compensated for range migration (see p. 1, equation 1).
Regarding claim 21, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising suppressing ambiguities in the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image data (p. 2, regarding most of the existing algorithms for AASR estimation and suppression are based on the assumption that the ambiguous signals are located in specific areas of the signal spectrum; see also p. 3 regarding the ambiguity thresholds).
Regarding claim 23, Radius discloses a computing system comprising one or more processors configured to perform a method according to claim 1 (inherent given the disclosure of Radius, see also the rejection of claim 1 detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 24, Radius discloses a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed in a computing system, cause the computing system to carry out the method of claim 1 (inherent given the disclosure of Radius, see also the rejection of claim 1 detailed hereinabove).
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.
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:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radius et al.: “Phase Variant Analysis Algorithm for Azimuth Ambiguity Detection”, 2022 IEEE Radar Conference, 21 March 2022, hereinafter Radius.
Regarding claim 16, Radius discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose the invention comprising segmenting the phase derivative values to generate a mask corresponding to the image.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention to include segmenting the phase derivative values to generate a mask corresponding to the image, since the equivalence of segmenting the values to generate a mask and merely using the raw values for their use in the ambiguity detection art and the selection of any known equivalents to segmenting would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The purpose would be to aide in the speed of the operation and enable visualization options.
Regarding claim 18, Radius discloses the invention in claim 16, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein segmenting the phase derivative values to generate a mask comprises using a threshold.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that segmenting the phase derivative values to generate a mask comprises using a threshold, since the equivalence of segmenting the values by using a threshold and merely using the raw values for their use in the ambiguity detection art and the selection of any known equivalents to segmenting would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The purpose would be to aide in the speed of the operation and enable visualization options.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, the prior art of record does not appear to teach the combined limitations of claims 10 and 22.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 571-270-5144. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights