CTNF 18/917,760 CTNF 81427 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 22 November 2005), Annex IV, reads as follows: Descriptive material can be characterized as either "functional descriptive material" or "nonfunctional descriptive material." In this context, "functional descriptive material" consists of data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer component. (The definition of "data structure" is "a physical or logical relationship among data elements, designed to support specific data manipulation functions." The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms 308 (5th ed. 1993).) "Nonfunctional descriptive material" includes but is not limited to music, literary works and a compilation or mere arrangement of data. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (claim to data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increases computer efficiency held statutory) and Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1360-61, 31 USPQ2d at 1759 (claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim) with Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 1 defines a “device”. However, while the preamble defines a “device”, which would typically be indicative of an “apparatus”, the body of the claim lacks definite structure indicative of a physical apparatus. Therefore, the claim as a whole appears to be nothing more than a system of software elements, thus defining functional descriptive material per se. Functional descriptive material may be statutory if it resides on a “computer-readable medium or computer-readable memory”. The claim(s) indicated above lack structure, and do not define a computer readable medium and are thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). The scope of the presently claimed invention encompasses products that are not necessarily computer readable, and thus NOT able to impart any functionality of the recited program. The examiner suggests: 1. Amending the claim(s) to embody the program on “non-transitory computer-readable medium” or equivalent; assuming the specification does NOT define the computer readable medium as a “signal”, “carrier wave”, or “transmission medium” which are deemed non-statutory; or 2. Adding structure to the body of the claim that would clearly define a statutory apparatus. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-3 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the total number " in lines 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “choosing two from” in line 3. It is unclear if something is chosen or if the number two is chosen. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation “ the coherence maps ” in lines 10-11 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation “ two of which are extracted” in line 12. It is unclear as to what two are extracted. Claim 1 recite the limitation “it” in line 13. It is unclear as to what “it” is referring to. Claim 1 recite the limitation “the pixel of interest ” in lines 14-15 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the radar image " in the last line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pixels of interest" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant only previously claims “the pixel of interest”. Allowable Subject Matter As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Claims 1-3 contain allowable subject matter (as best understood by the examiner), and would be allowed if the above rejections are overcome. Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter regarding the claimed coherence calculator calculating a coherence map for all combinations of images, and choosing two images from the all combination of images, wherein the coherence calculator calculates coherence as claimed in a radar image, and a change identifier to determine which of at least nine different modes of coherence change occurs by referring to coherence maps calculated by the coherence calculator for two combinations of images, each combination extracted from at least three images, and to identify the type of change when a change is determined in a pixel of interest through the claimed threshold processing performed by the threshold processor and using the threshold set by the threshold calculator to extract a change region. JP2009028911 discloses the selecting of radar images to calculated coherent maps along with thresholding processing, but does not disclose the claimed determining which of at least 9 different modes of coherence change occurs, as claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM. 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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. /KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 6/11/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/917,760 Page 2 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/917,760 Page 3 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/917,760 Page 4 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/917,760 Page 5 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/917,760 Page 6 Art Unit: 2666
Prosecution Insights