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 9-11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 2-4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: They refer to “The method of claim 8”. However, claim 8 is a system not a method. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12223582. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the notion of the claims in the current application correspond with the claims in Patent No. 12223582.
Current Application (19/046,351)
Reference Patent (US 12223582)
Claim
Limitation
Claim
Limitation
1
A method of iterative ray tracing, comprising the steps of:
1
A method of iterative ray tracing, comprising the steps of:
transmitting, from a transmitter at a first location, a signal into a portion of the ionosphere;
transmitting, from a transmitter at a first location, a swept signal into a portion of the ionosphere;
receiving, at a receiver positioned at a second location, a reflection of the signal;
receiving, at a receiver positioned at a second location, a reflection of the swept signal;
at a computing system connected to the receiver: receiving a first input comprising data indicative of an oblique incidence (OI) ionogram based on the reflection of the signal;
at a computing system connected to the receiver: receiving a first input comprising data indicative of an oblique incidence (OI) ionogram based on the reflection of the swept signal;
generating a first output comprising first output data, comprising processing the data indicative of the oblique incidence (OI) ionogram to reduce at least one of noise and spurious signals in the data;
reducing at least one of noise and other spurious signals in the data, to programmatically produce a first output comprising first output data;
autoscaling the first output data to produce a second output comprising data indicative of a substantially separated O- trace and an X- trace;
autoscaling the first output data, to programmatically produce a second output comprising data indicative of a substantially separated O- trace and an X- trace;
receiving an initial electron density profile;
determining an initial electron density profile
determining a constructed OI ionogram based on the initial electron density profile
determining a constructed OI ionogram based on the initial electron density profile;
comparing the constructed OI ionogram to the second output;
determining that a difference between the constructed ionogram and second output exceeds a threshold;
and adjusting one or more parameters of the initial electron density profile based on the comparison;
and adjusting one or more parameters of the initial electron density profile based on the difference between the constructed ionogram and second output;
and outputting the predicted electron density profile.
and outputting a predicted electron density profile.
2
The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitter comprises an oblique incidence sounder.
2
The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitter and receiver form at least part of an HF sounder system
8
A system for performing iterative ray tracing, the system comprising: a transmitter positioned at a first location, the transmitter configured to transmit a signal into a portion of the ionosphere;
5
A system for iterative ray tracing, the system comprising: a transmitter positioned at a first location and configured to transmit a swept signal into a portion of the ionosphere;
a receiver positioned at a second location, the receiver configured to receive a reflection of the signal;
a receiver positioned at a second location and configured to receive the swept signal from the transmitter;
a computing system connected to the receiver,
a computing system connected to the receiver,
the computing system comprising one or more processors, a memory, and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
the computing system comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
receiving a first input comprising data indicative of an oblique incidence (OI) ionogram
receive a first input comprising data indicative of an OI ionogram
generating a first output comprising first output data, comprising processing the data indicative of the oblique incidence (OI) ionogram to reduce at least one of noise and spurious signals in the data;
reduce at least one of noise and other spurious signals in the data, to programmatically produce a first output comprising first output data;
autoscaling the first output data to produce a second output comprising data indicative of a substantially separated O- trace and an X- trace;
autoscale the first output data with an autoscaling and extraction module to programmatically produce a second output comprising data indicative of a substantially separated O- trace and an X- trace;
predicting an electron density profile over a measurement region associated with the portion of the ionosphere, comprising:
predict the electron density profile over [[the]] measurement region associated with the portion of the ionosphere,
receiving an initial electron density profile;
determining an initial electron density profile
determining a constructed OI ionogram based on the initial electron density profile;
determining a constructed OI ionogram based on the initial electron density profile;
comparing the constructed OI ionogram to the second output;
determining that a difference between the constructed ionogram and second output exceeds a threshold;
adjusting one or more parameters of the initial electron density profile based on the comparison;
adjusting one or more parameters of the initial electron density profile based on the difference between the constructed ionogram and second output;
and outputting the predicted electron density profile.
and output a predicted electron density profile.
As per claim 15 of the current application, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 1 of the current application, and thus is rejected under the same rationale as being a double patent to claim 1 of the reference patent. The system of claim 1 would have to have some type of non-transitory machine readable medium present in order to function and run on a computer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH Y. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8374. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Daniel F. Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
SARAH Y. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights