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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Claims 1 and 8 recite, in the claim body, the following mathematical relationships and calculations: calculating, by the processor, a power spectral density (PSD) of the first filtered signal (a PSD is by definition the squared magnitude of a Fourier transform, i.e., a mathematical formula applied to a data set); estimating and correcting sloping in a PSD floor (the specification teaches see [0053] that this is performed by "taking a rolling average of measured PSD and then subtracting PSD by the rolling average"); summing around the location with a fixed window size to generate a first sum and summing the entire processed PSD (addition); and comparing the first sum to a threshold (a mathematical comparison).
Furthermore, determining a location of maximum value, comparing the first sum to a
threshold, and indicating a presence of a laser creating the scattered laser light in response to the first sum exceeding the threshold are evaluations can be performed through human mind. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Further analysis under Prong Two – whether the claim integrate into a practical application -- is warranted.
The recited elements in claims 1 and 8 are – an optical sensor, a processor and a filter.
The optical sensor recited in claims 1 and 8 are merely data gathering which supply input to the mathematical operation. It is understood the function of optical sensor “pre-solution” as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The high pass filter is understood can be mathematical in nature (see claims 5 and 11). Thus, it is a further manipulation of data via a processor which does not appear to be integrated into a practical application.
The processor is a general-purpose computer invoked as a tool to perform the exception MPEP 2106.05(f). Paragraphs [0057]-[0060] confirm the generality: the processor "may be implemented as a single processor or as multiple processors," the memory "may include one or more of a Random Access Memory (RAM) or other volatile or non-volatile memory," and the system "may be a cloud computing system."
Indicating a presence of a laser is the bare output of the result of the mathematical comparison – insignificant post-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not recite any alert, countermeasure, steering, wavelength report, or other action taken in consequence.
Based upon the analyses above, it is been determined that the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 USC 101 is deemed proper.
Claims 2-7 and 9-13 are rejected based upon their dependency upon rejected claims 1 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 15 recites that the first signal processing operation comprises implementing a convolutional neural network (CNN) via machine learning. The entire disclosure of that subject matter consists of the single sentence at paragraph [0013] " Nothing further is disclosed: no network architecture, no number or type of layers, no input representation, no labelling or training corpus, no loss function, no training procedure, no validation methodology, and no worked example or performance result. As such, the rejection under this section is deemed proper.
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.
Claims 1 is 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 Estimating and correcting, by the processor, sloping in a PSD floor of the PSD of the first filtered signal is indefinite in three respects: (i) "sloping" is a relative term of degree for which the specification supplies no standard and also "a PSD floor" is nowhere defined, and it cannot be determined the scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belzer et al (Detection of laser light scattered from aerosols in a bright background using a balanced coherent receiver Optics Continuum Vol. 2, No. 4/15 Apr 2023 / Optics Continuum).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Belzer et al teach (Figs. 1-4) A method for coherent detection for identification of scattered laser (grande laser) light by an optical sensor (BCD) connected to a processor, the method comprising: collecting a raw optical signal by the optical sensor; applying a first high pass filter (high pass filter page 755) to the raw optical signal to generate a first filtered signal; calculating, by the processor, a power spectral density (PSD) of the first filtered signal; estimating and correcting, by the processor, sloping in a PSD floor (psd floor see page 755) of the PSD of the first filtered signal to generate a second filtered signal; determining a location of maximum value (peak detection see page 755 section 3) in the second filtered signal; summing around (integrate) the location with a fixed window size to generate a first sum; comparing the first sum to a threshold; and indicating, by the processor, a presence of a laser creating the scattered laser light in response to the first sum exceeding the threshold (detection of scattered laser light).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Belzer et al teach the first high pass filter has a cut-off of about 1 MHz.
Regarding claims 3, Belzer et al teach (see section 3 – data analysis and results) the first high pass filter has a cut-off selected to remove lower frequency components that cause an unwanted spike in PSD in an absence of the laser.
Regarding claim 5, Belzer et al teach the first high pass filter is a software-based filter implemented by the processor (see section 3, page 755).
Regarding claim 16, Belzer et al teach (page 752) the local oscillator source is a continuous- wave laser.
Regarding claim 17, Belzer et al teach (Page 753) the local oscillator source comprises one of a non-cooperative tunable laser, an optical frequency comb with an engineered spectrum, or a continuous wave laser with a time-modulated amplitude and phase.
Regarding claim 18, Belzer et al teach (conclusion section also where tunable laser frequency set to desired frequency) the local oscillator source comprises a phase modulator driven by a laser and a waveform generator, wherein the carrier signal generated by the local oscillator source is not continuous wave.
Regarding claim 19, Belzer et al teach the local oscillator source at least one of (1) phase modulates or (2) amplitude modulates the carrier signal that is mixed by the mixer with the raw optical signal. That is, carrier frequency is either Frequency modulated or amplitude modulated with main signal.
Claim 20 recites method steps set forth in rejected claims 1 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY KO whose telephone number is (571)272-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/TONY KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
TK
Prosecution Insights