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 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the meaning of the symbols n-hat, x, and y in
PNG
media_image1.png
34
58
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
40
64
media_image2.png
Greyscale
should be indicated upon their first occurrence in the claims.
In claim 1 line 4 and corresponding portions of claims 12 and 14, “a radar’s trajectory” should be amended to “a trajectory of the radar” or similar, as the radar has been previously recited in line 2.
In claim 4 line 1 and claim 6 line 1 and corresponding portions of claims 17 and 19, “the” should be inserted before “combining” as the combining has been previously recited in claim 1.
In claim 12 line 3 and claim 14 line 3 “, for” or similar should be inserted after “obtain”, as “obtain a region of interest within a field of view of the radar, at least two radar images, γn^x,y, of the region of interest acquired along a radar’s trajectory” is ungrammatical.
The remaining claims are dependent. 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.
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.
Regarding claim 1 lines 6-8 and corresponding portions of claims 12 and 14, the scope of “deriving, from the respective radar images, weight maps, Wn(x,y), by multiplying the range information normalized with respect to the cross-range information and the cross-range information normalized with respect to the range information” cannot be clearly determined. Lines 3-5 of claim 1 states that there are “at least two radar images... the radar images comprising range information and cross-range information”, from which one of ordinary skill would understand that each radar image comprises range and cross-range information. However lines 6-8 recite “the range information” and “the cross-range information” without specifying which of the at least two radar images said information comes from. The terms “the range information” and “the cross-range information” therefore lack clear antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 5 line 4 and claim 7 line 5, “the prior knowledge” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, “the step of weighting” and “the step of applying” lack clear antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 10 “wherein the radar images are time-domain or frequency-domain reconstructed radar images or time-domain or frequency-domain reconstructed SAR images” (emphasis added), the radar images have already been specified as “from a synthetic aperture radar, SAR” in claim 1 lines 2-4, making it unclear what is meant by the broader term “radar images” as used here.
Regarding claim 13 line 4, “the performing of the SAR imaging system” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 14 line 3, “the radar” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 18 lines 4-5 and claim 20 line 5, “the prior knowledge” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites “A computer implemented method” and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
deriving, from the respective radar images, weight maps, Wn(x,y), by multiplying the range information normalized with respect to the cross-range information and the cross-range information normalized with respect to the range information; and
combining the radar images, γn(x,y), by taking into account the derived weight maps, Wn(x,y), thereby obtaining a compensated radar image of the region of interest, γn(x,y).
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The deriving step is explicitly recited as comprising multiplying normalized range and cross-range information, and the combining step is described in para. [0013] of the specification as comprising summing and multiplying.
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites:
- the method being computer implemented; and
- obtaining, from a synthetic aperture radar, SAR, for imaging a region of interest within a field of view of the radar, at least two radar images, γn(x,y), of the region of interest acquired along a radar’s trajectory, the radar images comprising range information and cross-range information.
Regarding the method being computer implemented, the computer comprises generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the computer merely performs the generic computer functions of receiving data and performing calculations.
Regarding obtaining radar images from a SAR, this amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering, as the computer is merely receiving data that represents radar measurements performed elsewhere.
The courts have found that generic computer equipment and insignificant extra-solution activity do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I). These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim include generic computer equipment and insignificant extra-solution activity.
The courts have found that insignificant extra-solution activity and generic computer equipment do not amount to significantly more, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 A). Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11 recite further mathematical concepts, further data gathering, and further description of the gathered data without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claims 14-20, as best understood, differ from claims 1-7 only in reciting a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor, and are therefore not patent eligible for the same reasons discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 14, the closest prior art (Samaniego US 20120262324 A1) teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught are lined through] a computer implemented method comprising:
obtaining, from a synthetic aperture radar, SAR (abstract “SAR”), for imaging a region of interest within a field of view of the radar, at least two radar images, γn(x,y), of the region of interest acquired along a radar’s trajectory, the radar images comprising range information and cross-range information (104, Fig. 5 “raw images”; range information indicated by “range gating”, para. [0042]; cross-range information indicated by use of array 12 and angle ϴd, Fig. 1A);
deriving, from the respective radar images, weight maps, Wn(x,y) (106, Fig. 5 “COMPUTE A WEIGHTING FROM THE RAW IMAGES”)
combining the radar images, γn(x,y), by taking into account the derived weight maps, Wn(x,y), thereby obtaining a compensated radar image of the region of interest, γn(x,y) (108, Fig. 5 “COMBINE THE RAW IMAGES ACCORDING TO THE WEIGHTING TO FORM A REFINED IMAGE”).
Samaniego further teaches “image processor 40 may generate the weighting as a correlation beam derived from a sum of the complex correlations of the receive channels. Pixels whose sum is small may be given a relatively smaller weighting than those whose sum is large. Small sums generally are indicative of noise or sidelobe interference” (para. [0060]).
Wang (US 20230305136 A1) teaches reconstructing a radar image from a sequence of radar image frames comprising range and cross-range information (para. [0003] “range”; para. [0005] “azimuth”, “elevation”, “cross-range”; heatmaps 107, Fig. 2A) using a weighted combination of heat maps (Fig. 3; paras. [0021], [0045]).
Wakayama (JP 2011247597 A) teaches a weighted combination of first and second SAR images in order to provide an image with “less false images” (abstract “a plurality of radar images to which synthetic aperture processing... is performed” and “obtains an image with less false images”; paragraph bridging pages 4-5 of translation “the first radar image.. is weighted... the second radar image is weighted, and a radar image obtained by combining the first radar image and the second radar image is calculated”).
However the prior art does not teach or make obvious combining radar images using weight maps derived “by multiplying the range information normalized with respect to the cross-range information and the cross-range information normalized with respect to the range information” as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, RESHA DESAI can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights