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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Requirement for Information
An examiner or other Office employee may require from individuals identified under 37 CFR 1.56(c), the submission of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, in a pending or abandoned application that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding. The scope of 37 CFR 1.105 is extended to any assignee or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application because the information required may be known to some members of the assignee or obligated assignee even if not known by the inventors.
Examiner notes that co-inventors Mark Lewis and Sean McCarthy are listed as authors of OD44B-2793: Automated Ocean Front Delineation from SST Image Products, a submission to the 2018 Ocean Sciences Meeting held 11-16 February in Portland, Oregon. A poster (#2793) was, presumably, publicly displayed at least on Thursday, 15 February 2018 in the Poster Hall of the Oregon Convention Center. While images of other posters have been found in the Examiner’s search of the prior art, an image of the specific poster #2793 has yet to be found as of the time of the mailing of this action. Other posters from the same event include graphics, flowcharts, and so forth. The submission (OD44B-2793) and poster (#2793) referenced above were not disclosed on any IDS. To date, no IDS has been filed in the instant application. In light of that absence, the following requirements for information are made:
What was the involvement, if any, by co-inventor Elizabeth Mary Douglass, with respect to the 2018 Ocean Sciences Meeting, the submission (OD44B-2793) and the poster (#2793)?
Is there any information from the poster (#2793) that is not disclosed by the abstract of the submission (OD44B-2793)?
Is there any other documentation from the 2018 OSM meeting related to the submission (OD44B-2793) that this not already of record?
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) because the two partial views of method 1700 are not correctly identified. The first view is identified by “FIG. 17”and the second view is identified by “FIG. 17 (cont.)”. To comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), the first view should be identified by “FIG. 17A” and the second view should be identified by “FIG. 17B”.
The drawings are also objected to because the reference character 1813 in “DISPLAY 1813” of Figure 18 is not found in the description. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Paragraphs 44, 50, 51 and 110 include the phrase “above threshold” which is imprecise and should be clarified as to whether each threshold discussed is a new or different threshold.
Lines 6-7 of paragraph 149 on page 19 include, “The computer system 1800 may be connected to a local may be a network (LAN) or a wide may be a network (e.g., the Internet) 1814 via a network interface connection (not shown).” This sentence appears to include some unintended phrases, perhaps an unintended result of a spellchecking program. Examiner suggests changing this sentence to: “The computer system 1800 may be connected to a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN) 1814 (e.g., the Internet) via a network interface connection (not shown).”
Paragraph 149 includes a description of Figure 18. Figure 18 includes “INPUT DEVICE(S) 1808” and “DISPLAY 1813”. However, paragraph 149 discloses “input means 1808”. The description in the specification conflicts with the description in the drawings, which creates ambiguity in regard to understanding whether the different phrases are equivalents or not. Examiner suggests changing the description to conform to the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: there should be an instance of “wherein” after the comma to be consistent with the other claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes a claim limitation that does not use the word “means,” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claims limitations are:
“receiving, by a processing device, a historical data set associated with an initial fluid mass, the historical data set comprising a bounding area, … identifying, by the processing device, in the bounding area, a first pixel having a gradient value above a threshold, … pushing, by the processing device, the first pixel into a queue; setting, by the processing device, a heading … generating, by the processing device, a digital tree … while repeating a process of popping pixels from the queue: identifying, by the processing device, based on (i) the digital tree and (ii) the orientation direction, a set of adjacent pixels … updating, by the processing device, a respective heading for each of the adjacent pixels … and for each adjacent pixel in the set of pixels, determining, by the processing device, … … pushing, by the processing device …sorting, by the processing device … and determining, by the processing device … new data set being related to the bounding area comprised in the historical data set” in claims 1-27.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “identifying, by the processing device, in the bounding area, a first pixel having a gradient value above a threshold” and “determining, by the processing device, whether the corresponding gradient value is greater than a threshold, responsive to a corresponding gradient value for one of the adjacent pixels being less than the threshold, searching, by the processing device, along the heading of the corresponding adjacent pixel and if found, pushing a found pixel to the queue responsive to determining that the corresponding gradient value changes to be above the threshold when searching, and responsive to a corresponding gradient value for one of the adjacent pixels being greater than or equal to the threshold, pushing, by the processing device …” (emphasis added). Since claim 1 recites two instances of “a threshold”, the antecedent basis of “the threshold” is made unascertainable. For purposes of applying prior art, each threshold is assumed to refer to the same threshold. Dependent claims 2-27 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 12 and 13 each recite the phrase “substantially similar” in relation to a “geographical location” (claim 12) and “annual seasonal timeframe” (claim 13) as “the historical data set”. It is unclear what “substantially similar” means in the context of the claims. The specification, for example at paragraph 59, uses the phrasing “similar geographic area” and “similar time of year” without the word “substantially”. It is therefore unclear what the word “substantially” adds to the meaning of “similar”. For purposes of applying prior art, “substantially similar” is interpreted as “similar”.
Claims 24 and 25 each recite the phrase “a water-based operation”. It is unclear whether this operation is an image processing operation, an operation on or relating to a physical body of water, or something else. For purposes of applying prior art, this operation is interpreted as any further operation on the pixels of claim 1, which are based on water.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Automated Ocean Front Delineation from SST Image Products. American Geophysical Union, Ocean Sciences Meeting, OD44B-2793, to Lewis et al. is highly pertinent for the reasons provided above, as it includes strong areas of subject matter overlap with the instant application and was published in 2018. In addition, it is considered the closest prior art to the claimed invention.
Mapping Uncharted Waters: Exploratory Analysis, Visualization, and Clustering of Oceanographic Data to Lewis et al. is pertinent because it includes one overlapping inventor/author and is in the same field of endeavor as the instant claims: machine learning and oceanography.
Recursive and Iterative Algorithms for N-ary Search Problems to Sklyarov et al. (hereinafter “Sklyarov”) is pertinent for illustrating aspects related to the claimed search method in greater detail.
Automated Temporal Tracking of Coherently Evolving Density Fronts in Numerical Models to Wu et al. (hereinafter “Wu”) is provided to illustrate alternative approaches to detecting front boundaries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2672
