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 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 1-4, 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained in Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained in Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-54.
The method of claim 1, 13, and 14 is directed to the limitations “determining noise in a plurality of the search bins; determining the standard deviation of noise of a single search bin in the plurality of search bins; determining an integration time t; determining the number of search bins n; calculating the expected noise and expected standard deviation of the noise of the search bin having the maximum noise based on the number of search bins and the standard deviation of the noise of a single search bin; calculating the signal detection threshold based on a number of standard deviations from the expected noise of the search bin having the maximum noise; and setting the signal detection threshold” amount to a mathematical formula, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “search bins” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 2 is directed to the limitations “detecting the signal level in each search bin; and identifying one or more signals above the signal detection threshold” amount to a mathematical formula, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “search bins” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 3 is directed to the limitations “determining the frequency of the identified signal; and determining the code delay of the identified signal” amount to a mathematical formula performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “search bins” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 3 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 5 is directed to the limitations “determining noise comprises correlating the signal with a predetermined code” amount to a mathematical formula, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “search bins” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 5 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 8 is directed to the limitations “setting a second number of frequency bins; setting a second number of code delay bins; determining the noise in a plurality of the search bins; determining the standard deviation of noise of a single search bin in the plurality of search bins; determining an integration time t; determining the number of search bins n; the expected noise and expected standard deviation of the search bin having the maximum noise based on the number of search bins and the standard deviation of the noise of a single search bin; calculating a second signal detection threshold based on a number of standard deviations from the expected noise of the search bin having the maximum noise; and setting the second signal detection threshold” amount to a mathematical formula, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “search bins” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 11 is directed to the limitations “detecting the signal level in each search bin; and identifying one or more signals above the signal detection threshold” amount to a mathematical formula, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “search bins” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 12 is directed to the limitations “detecting the signal level in each search bin; and identifying one or more signals above the signal detection threshold amount to a mathematical formula, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “search bins” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2:
Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether the claims recite additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53-55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
In addition to reciting the above-noted abstract ideas, the issue is whether the claims as a whole including various additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. In other words, do the claims as a whole produce any meaningful limits, i.e. improvement in technology? comprises either all ones or all zeros
(claim 6) the code comprises either all ones or all zeros (claim 9) the second range of frequencies is a smaller range of frequencies and includes the frequency of the signal
(claim 7) the average noise per search bin, integration time, expected noise of the search bin having the maximum noise, variance of the maximum noise
(claim 9) the second range of frequencies is a smaller range of frequencies and includes the frequency of the signal
(claim 10) the second range of code delays is a smaller range of code delays and includes the code delay of the signal
The additional limitations are directed the types of data used in the mathematical formula, data gathering and data processing and therefore, None of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claim invention. Rather, the additional limitations are directed data gathering and data processing which is an extra-solution activity.
STEP 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, the issue is whether the claims adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The issue is whether the claims as a whole including the additional limitations, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. In other words, the issue is whether the additional elements in combination (as well as individually) amount to an inventive concept.
Again, the additional limitations are directed to mere data gathering and data processing which is “well-understood, routine, and conventional’ activity in the field. Thus, the additional limitations alone or in combination do not amount to an inventive concept.
Overall all the claims are directed to a three dimensional deformation field modeling, which is in and of itself an abstract idea because said modeling is a mathematical formula and perhaps data manipulation thus possibly extra-solution activity. Again, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As such, the ordered combination of features is directed solely to abstract ideas or extra-solution activity as discussed supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Haddad (US 20180188377) does not teach nor make obvious (claim 1, 13, and 14) calculating the signal detection threshold based on a number of standard deviations from the expected noise of the search bin having the maximum noise; and setting the signal detection threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights