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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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.
Claim 1 recites “compute candidate tracks (11), that may possibly be followed by the targets, based on the received unlabelled data (2)” and “compute, by means of a quantum optimization model (14), a final quantum state representative of final tracks (5), that may actually be followed by the targets, based on the initial quantum state” which renders the claim indefinite, because the claim recites “that may possibly be followed by the targets” and “that may actually be followed by the targets”. The scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 additionally recites “the identities” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “the absence of the corresponding candidate track (11)” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim(s) 2-9 are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reason(s) as claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 10:
Claim 1:
Multi-target tracking software (3) loadable in and executable by electronic processing resources (4) comprising at least one quantum computer (4Q); the multi-target tracking software (3) being designed to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured to: receive unlabelled data (2) indicative of positions of targets, in particular vehicles, to be tracked; the unlabelled data (2) failing to be indicative of the identities of the targets; compute candidate tracks (11), that may possibly be followed by the targets, based on the received unlabelled data (2); compute an initial quantum state representative of said candidate tracks (11); compute, by means of a quantum optimization model (14), a final quantum state representative of final tracks (5), that may actually be followed by the targets, based on the initial quantum state; and compute and output a multi-target tracking output based on the final quantum state.
Claim 10:
Multi-target tracking system (1) comprising: one quantum computer (4Q); and a multi-target tracking software (3) loadable in and executable by electronic processing resources (4) comprising at least the quantum computer (4Q); the multi-target tracking software (3) being designed to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured to: receive unlabelled data (2) indicative of positions of targets, in particular vehicles, to be tracked; the unlabelled data (2) failing to be indicative of the identities of the targets; compute candidate tracks (11), that may possibly be followed by the targets, based on the received unlabelled data (2); compute an initial quantum state representative of said candidate tracks (11); compute, by means of a quantum optimization model (14), a final quantum state representative of final tracks (5), that may actually be followed by the targets, based on the initial quantum state; and compute and output a multi-target tracking output based on the final quantum state.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
No. Claim 1 recites a “multi-target tracking software” and claim 10 recites “multi-target tracking system comprising a multi-target tracking software” that perform various functions. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. Therefore, the claim(s) do not fall within a statutory process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. See Ex parte Mewherter. Accordingly, claim(s) 1 and 10 fail to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim(s) 10 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “compute candidate tracks (11), that may possibly be followed by the targets, based on the received unlabelled data (2); compute an initial quantum state representative of said candidate tracks (11); compute, by means of a quantum optimization model (14), a final quantum state representative of final tracks (5), that may actually be followed by the targets, based on the initial quantum state; and compute […] a multi-target tracking output based on the final quantum state”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, mathematical functions, optimization, spatial relationships, geometry, etc.). MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.” When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the limitations are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “receive unlabelled data (2) indicative of positions of targets, in particular vehicles, to be tracked; the unlabelled data (2) failing to be indicative of the identities of the targets; […] and output a multi-target tracking output based on the final quantum state” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. They are insignificant extra-solution activities, which are data gathering (i.e., pre-solution activity) and data outputting (i.e., post-solution activity) in conjunction with the abstract idea. The limitation(s) represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP § 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The additional limitation(s) of “receive unlabelled data (2) indicative of positions of targets, in particular vehicles, to be tracked; the unlabelled data (2) failing to be indicative of the identities of the targets; […] and output a multi-target tracking output based on the final quantum state” do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1 and 10 are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-9:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
No. Claim(s) 2-9 recite a “multi-target tracking software” that performs various functions. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. Therefore, the claim(s) do not fall within a statutory process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. See Ex parte Mewherter. Accordingly, claim(s) 2-9 fail to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 3-9 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-9 are ineligible.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maskil et al. (US 2023/0244979 A1 cited in Applicant’s IDS “MASKIL”).
Regarding claim 1, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) loadable in and executable by electronic processing resources (4) comprising at least one quantum computer (4Q); the multi-target tracking software (3) being designed to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured (a hybrid quantum/classical computer implemented method useful in tracking one or more targets in a field of view [0007]) to:
receive unlabelled data (2) indicative of positions of targets, in particular vehicles, to be tracked; the unlabelled data (2) failing to be indicative of the identities of the targets (the signal processor may then analyze the data in the returning signal to determine the location of potential targets. The set of potential target locations (also referred to as sensed plots) may be sent to the graph processing component of the classical processor 100 for further processing [0044])
compute candidate tracks (11), that may possibly be followed by the targets, based on the received unlabelled data (2) (MHT is a logic in which alternative data association hypotheses are formed whenever observation-to-track conflict situations, such as shown in FIG. 1, occur [0005])
compute an initial quantum state representative of said candidate tracks (11) (optimizing said quadratic unconstrained binary cost function comprises: constructing a Hamiltonian encoding the quadratic unconstrained binary cost function in eigenvalues of said Hamiltonian by mapping the binary variables onto eigenvalues of Pauli X matrix convert it using Ising model to Pauli Z matrix [0014])
compute, by means of a quantum optimization model (14), a final quantum state representative of final tracks (5), that may actually be followed by the targets, based on the initial quantum state (determining at least one of the lowest energy eigenstate of said Hamiltonian using a quantum algorithm [0014])
and compute and output a multi-target tracking output based on the final quantum state (the classical computing system is further configured for processing one or more tracks between plots of successive scans when said plots belong to an edge associated with a binary variable belonging to the eigenstate associated with said at least one lowest eigenvalue [0018]).
Regarding claim 2, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) according to claim 1, and configured to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured to select the final tracks (5) between the candidate tracks (11) by means of the quantum optimization model (14) (determining at least one of the lowest energy eigenstate of said Hamiltonian using a quantum algorithm [0014], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) according to claim 1, and configured to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured to: associate each target to a respective final track (5) based on the final quantum state; and output, as multi-target tracking output, the final tracks (5) associated to targets (processing a graph (G) containing said sensed plots as vertices (V) and possible connections between pairs of plots associated with consecutive scans as edges (E); associating a binary variable to each edge of the graph (G); processing a cost function of the binary variables so as to favor geometrically relevant edge patterns [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) according to claim 1, and configured to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4), in order to compute the initial quantum state, to become configured to encode each candidate track (11) into one qubit of the initial quantum state (in a further step, the objective function in the QUBO form may be mapped to Ising model Hamiltonian form [0063]); (by mapping the WIT problem into a QUBO format which can be solved by finding the ground state (lowest eigenvalue) of the Hamiltonian representing the QUBO cost function, it is therefore possible to facilitate the solving of the MHT problem by using a quantum computer [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) according to claim 4, wherein the quantum optimization model (14), in order to compute the final quantum state to encode the final tracks (5), is configured to modify one or more qubits of the initial quantum state to cause said qubits to be further indicative of the absence of the corresponding candidate track (11) within the final tracks (5) (by mapping the WIT problem into a QUBO format which can be solved by finding the ground state (lowest eigenvalue) of the Hamiltonian representing the QUBO cost function, it is therefore possible to facilitate the solving of the MHT problem by using a quantum computer [0064], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (where P is a penalty, P>0 and Xi is a binary variable where Xi=0 means that the edge associated to the binary variable is not part of a track and Xi=1 means that the edge is part of a track [0069]).
Regarding claim 6, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) according to claim 4, wherein the quantum optimization model (14) is configured to compute the final quantum state by performing a Hamiltonian unitary evolution on the initial quantum state (in particular, the cost function can be represented by a Hamiltonian operator (i.e. an Hermitian matrix) and the optimizing of the cost function can be performed by finding the ground state of said Hamiltonian (i.e. the lowest eigenvalue of the Hermitian matrix) [0064]).
Regarding claim 7, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) according to claim 1, wherein the electronic processing resources (4) further comprise a classical computer (4C) (a hybrid quantum/classical computer implemented method useful in tracking one or more targets in a field of view [0007]); and wherein the multi-target tracking software (3) is configured to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured, in order to compute the final tracks (5), to alternately execute: a quantum optimization, performed by means of the quantum computer (4Q), based on the quantum optimization model (14) and an input thereof; and a classical optimization, performed by means of the classical computer (4C), based on a classical optimization model (16) and an input thereof. Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the alternative in claim 1 was given patentable weight. Although claim 7 recites additional elements, the claim as a whole still depends on the full scope of claim 7 which encompasses the alternative from claim 1; therefore, claim 7 is rejected in its entirety. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Regarding claim 8, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) according to claim 7, and configured to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured to alternately execute: an encoding of a data, indicative of the candidate tracks (11), in a quantum state; and a quantum optimization of said encoding based on the quantum optimization model (14); and a decoding of a received quantum state in a data indicative of the candidate tracks (11); and a classical optimization of said decoding based on the classical optimization model (16). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the alternative in claim 1 was given patentable weight. Although claim 8 recites additional elements, the claim as a whole still depends on the full scope of claim 8 which encompasses the alternative from claim 1; therefore, claim 8 is rejected in its entirety. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
Regarding claim 9, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking software (3) according to claim 1, and designed to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured to: compute a weighted graph (13) comprising the candidate tracks (11) being associated with evaluation indices thereof; and compute the initial quantum state based on the computed weighted graph (13) (certain type of series of connections may be penalized and/or a weight of series of connections in the cost function may be dependent on a geometrical shape of said series of connections. In particular, series of connections having a linear pattern (shape) may be favored relative to series of connections showing a curved pattern. Series of connections having a smooth pattern may be favored relative to series of connections having an irregular pattern. A series of connections may appear in the cost function as a product of the binary variables associated with said connections. The cost function may be mapped to a Hamiltonian and the optimization of the cost function is performed using a quantum algorithm [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, MASKIL discloses multi-target tracking system (1) comprising: one quantum computer (4Q); and a multi-target tracking software (3) loadable in and executable by electronic processing resources (4) comprising at least the quantum computer (4Q); the multi-target tracking software (3) being designed to cause, when executed, the electronic processing resources (4) to become configured (a hybrid quantum/classical computer implemented method useful in tracking one or more targets in a field of view [0007]) to:
receive unlabelled data (2) indicative of positions of targets, in particular vehicles, to be tracked; the unlabelled data (2) failing to be indicative of the identities of the targets (the signal processor may then analyze the data in the returning signal to determine the location of potential targets. The set of potential target locations (also referred to as sensed plots) may be sent to the graph processing component of the classical processor 100 for further processing [0044])
compute candidate tracks (11), that may possibly be followed by the targets, based on the received unlabelled data (2) (MHT is a logic in which alternative data association hypotheses are formed whenever observation-to-track conflict situations, such as shown in FIG. 1, occur [0005])
compute an initial quantum state representative of said candidate tracks (11) (optimizing said quadratic unconstrained binary cost function comprises: constructing a Hamiltonian encoding the quadratic unconstrained binary cost function in eigenvalues of said Hamiltonian by mapping the binary variables onto eigenvalues of Pauli X matrix convert it using Ising model to Pauli Z matrix [0014])
compute, by means of a quantum optimization model (14), a final quantum state representative of final tracks (5), that may actually be followed by the targets, based on the initial quantum state (determining at least one of the lowest energy eigenstate of said Hamiltonian using a quantum algorithm [0014])
and compute and output a multi-target tracking output based on the final quantum state (the classical computing system is further configured for processing one or more tracks between plots of successive scans when said plots belong to an edge associated with a binary variable belonging to the eigenstate associated with said at least one lowest eigenvalue [0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ploplys et al. (US 2013/0234882 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of a system and/or a method for multiple hypothesis tracking. The receiver is configured to receive tracking data associated with one or more target families from one or more sensors. The array generation module is configured to generate a matrix array based on the tracking data. The local search move module is configured to perform one or more local search moves on one or more cells in the matrix array to increase a global hypothesis score for the tracking data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights