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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that it would not be possible to perform the claimed method in a human mind and thus the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The argument does not explain why performance in the mind is not possible, but merely labels the steps as “technical image-processing operations performed on remotely sensed radar data from space”. To the extent that the argument may be intended to imply that the operations involve a quantity of data that cannot be processed by a human, the argument is not persuasive at least because while the claimed invention may involve vast amounts of data, the claimed “sets of image data” do not exclude embodiments where the imagery is comparatively simple and data sets are sparse.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the claims improve SAR-based remote sensing techniques for monitoring storage tanks and therefore integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. The argument is not persuasive because an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a) (II): "To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
At pages 10-11 Applicant argues that whether SAR image acquisition was known is not the relevant inquiry and the issue under Step 2B is whether the claim as an ordered combination recites significantly more than the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05 (II), “Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s))”. Applicant argues the claimed combination of steps constitutes a specific technological implementation directed to measuring a physical structure and therefore amounts to significantly more. The argument does not identify any additional elements associated with these steps, the steps being those identified as the exception. The argument is not persuasive because as indicated in the Office action, even when considered in combination, the additional elements (computer elements, data gathering) represent mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention of claims 1 and 19 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues Villamil Lopez does not disclose the definition of a stack of aligned image data and instead only uses multiple images to independently calculate the volume of oil storage using each image taken at different times, and then to compare the volume of liquid at different times.
Similarly at page 12 Applicant argues that the semicircle in Villamil Lopez is not identified in a stack of aligned image data, rather the first semicircle is identified from a plurality of point scatterers that are determined from a single image, referring to disclosed advantage that only a single radar image from a SAR is required by Villamil Lopez. The argument is not persuasive because it does not address the additional disclosure immediately following the referenced portion of Villamil Lopez, i.e. “If, in addition, a large number of radar images are generated for different points in time, the proposed method can synergistically bundle their information content in order to improve the accuracy of all radar images and the overall robustness of the method, instead of only generating individual radar images that are technically independent of one another in principle.”
Villamil Lopez continues on to describe aligning images so that points on the bottom semicircle are in common: “According to a further advantageous embodiment, when adjusting the semicircles, all point scatterers remaining at the same location over the two points in time are assigned to the line of contact of the outside of the casing wall with the ground or the line of contact of the outside of the casing wall with the maintenance corridor in the region of the upper edge of the casing wall, and all point scatterers whose location changes over time are assigned to the line of contact between the inside of the shell wall of the oil tank and the upper face of the floating roof”. Note “scatterers remaining at the same location over time” refers to points across two or more images.
At page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues again that Villamil Lopez does not describe the use of a stack at all, let alone the alignment of image data to the stack. The argument is not persuasive as shown above, as Villamil Lopez describes aligning multiple images in disclosing that scatterers from each image which do not change position over time are assigned to corresponding elements of the tank (line of contact with the ground and with the maintenance corridor). Notably, the instant specification describes the claimed alignment at [0009] in a similar manner: “Geometrically aligning the images may be understood as being the process of aligning images such that features within the images that are clearly features corresponding to the same imaged objects (e g , because of their geometry) are overlaid upon one another”. It is further noted that it is fundamentally not possible to determine whether a location of a scatterer has or has not changed over time from one image to the next and/or determine interferometric coherence as is disclosed by Villamil Lopez in this process unless the images are geometrically aligned.
Also at page 13, Applicant argues that the second semicircle of Villamil Lopez is identified from the same single radar image as the image from which the first semicircle is determined and not identified from another set of image data that is different from the data from which the first semicircle is identified. The argument is not persuasive because Villamil Lopez discloses establishing the first semicircle (bottom) and the second semicircle (top) using a plurality of images for initial measurements, and then subsequently aligning additional image(s) to monitor the position of the second semicircle as the volume of fluid changes over time.
At pages 13-14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Villamil Lopez discloses the use of a single image, which is the traditional way of using layover versus multiple images grouped and geometrically aligned. The argument is not persuasive as addressed above because Villamil Lopez specifically discloses the use of multiple images both to establish the location of the bottom and floating roof of the tank, and aligning additional images to identify changes in the location of the floating roof.
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 1-16, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s):
receiving, at an I/O interface, a plurality of sets of image data collected by one or more satellites in orbit around Earth, wherein each set of image data corresponds to a respective synthetic aperture radar image of an area on Earth that includes the storage container;
grouping the plurality of sets of image data into one or more groups based on one or both of a direction of travel and/or a look direction of the respective satellite that collected the set of image data; and
for each of the one or more groups:
geometrically aligning at least two of the sets of image data within the group to define a stack of aligned image data; identifying, in the stack of aligned image data a feature corresponding to a point on a bottom edge of the storage container;
geometrically aligning another set of image data from amongst the plurality of sets of image data with the stack of aligned image data;
identifying, in the another set of image data, a feature corresponding to a point on the lid; and
determining, based on the identified features, an estimate of a height of the lid relative to the bottom edge of the storage container.
Claim 19 recites corresponding steps in the form of computer functions.
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The steps of grouping, aligning, identifying, and determining encompass mental observations or evaluations, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes, which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1 and 19 recite an additional element of receiving “a plurality of sets of image data collected by one or more satellites in orbit around Earth, wherein each set of image data corresponds to a respective synthetic aperture radar image of an area on Earth that includes the storage container”.
This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the estimation. The step represents insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 requires the receiving to be “at an I/O interface” and claim 19 indicates the instructions cause a computer to perform the steps.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, the computer generally applies the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mental process) without placing any limitation on how the processor operates. The claim invokes generic computer elements (computer and its generic I/O interface) as a tool for performing the recited idea rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the step of receiving a plurality of sets of image data via generic I/O interface is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown in the disclosure, is well-understood (e.g. WO2022/058402, US 2018/0336693 Abstracts). Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the computer and interface thereof was found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention of claims 1 and 19 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 adds a step of combining determined estimates of the height of the lid which is a mental process and does not introduce any additional elements.
Claims 3-5 and 21-22 add additional image data reception and additional iterations of the steps of claims 1 and 19 accordingly, which as set forth above does not integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the idea.
Claim 3 also adds a step of applying interferometric analysis between sets of image data which is a mental process and does not introduce any additional elements.
Claim 6 adds a step of combining determined estimates which is a mental process and does not introduce any additional elements.
Concerning claims 7-16, the claims further detail the steps of claims 1 and 3 and do not introduce any additional elements.
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) 1-6, 11-13, 15-16, 19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Villamil Lopez (WO 2022/058402).
Regarding claim 1, Villamil Lopez discloses a method of monitoring a stored volume of a fluid in a storage container having a lid resting on a surface of the fluid stored, the method comprising:
receiving at an I/O interface of computing unit (5) a plurality of sets of image data collected by one or more satellites in orbit around Earth, wherein each set of image data corresponds to a respective synthetic aperture radar image of an area on Earth that includes the storage container (Abstract; translation page 5, page middle: “in addition, a large number of radar images are generated for different points in time, the proposed method can synergistically bundle their information content in order to improve the accuracy of all radar images and the overall robustness of the method, instead of only generating individual radar images that are technically independent of one another in principle);
grouping the plurality of sets of image data into one or more groups based on one or both of a direction of travel and/or a look direction of the respective satellite that collected the set of image data and for each of the one or more groups: geometrically aligning at least two of the sets of image data within the group to define a stack of aligned image data (translation page 6, final paragraph: “this is done by analyzing a cross-correlation of the moving point scatterers in the processed radar images for different points in time (and in general movements of the point scatterers) along a range axis”; “range axis” is based on the look angle of a SAR); and
identifying, in the stack of aligned image data a feature corresponding to a point on a bottom edge of the storage container (“first semicircle” (11));
geometrically aligning another set of image data from amongst the plurality of sets of image data with the stack of aligned image data (translation page 7, middle: “If the method steps are repeated at at least two different times in order to track a change in the fill level of the oil tank, the following procedure is preferably used:)”;
identifying, in the another set of image data, a feature corresponding to a point on the lid (“second semicircle 12”); and
determining, based on the identified features, an estimate of a height of the lid relative to the bottom edge of the storage container (translation page 7, middle: “The estimation of the initial absolute height of the floating roof is preferably determined using several, in particular all, radar images of the different points in time, in particular by determining the respective semicircle from the respective double reflection in each of the radar images, and then the change determined for the previous point in time”).
Concerning claim 19, Villamil Lopez implicitly teaches a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions for the method according to claim 1, as a computing unit (5) is disclosed by Villamil Lopez for performing the method.
Regarding claim 2, Villamil Lopez discloses combining estimates of the height of the lid to obtain an overall determination as claimed (translation page 7, top paragraph: “with multiple equating of displacements of the floating roof recorded at non-consecutive points in time with the sum of all recorded displacements of the floating roof between the points in time considered overdetermined system of equations is generated in order to determine a displacement of the floating roof over a predetermined period of time”).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 21, Villamil Lopez discloses repeated “further sets” of image data (images) corresponding to the container location as shown above including identification of points on the lid as indicated above. Villamil Lopez further discloses the interferometric analysis to determine if the height of the lid relative to the bottom edge has changed (Translation page 6, middle: “A high interferometric coherence of a point scatterer assumed to be remaining indicates no movement of the same point scatterer, a low interferometric coherence indicates a change in the point scatterer”).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 22, the claims introduce no new steps but instead require repetition of the steps of claims 1-2 and 19. As shown above, Villamil Lopez discloses such repetition to monitor changes. See also Villamil Lopez claim 9.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Villamil Lopez discloses the identified features are comprised of pixels having a “stronger signal” than those surrounding (i.e. “bright spots” (translation page 3, bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Villamil Lopez discloses determining an amount of change in the height of the lid based on the interferometric analysis (translation page 6, penultimate paragraph: “Point spreaders are separated from one another, and the change in the fill level of the oil tank is determined from the change in height of the point spreaders, which are variable in their location over time”).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Villamil Lopez discloses identifying in the sets of image data one or more storage containers in the respective area and performing the identifying of features, determining of the height of the corresponding lid, and identifying lid height changes between sets of data for each (translation page 3, penultimate paragraph: “the position of the oil tanks can be determined in a first pass of a radar-assisted imaging of the satellite using a synthetic aperture method, preferably by image recognition or other automated methods of artificial intelligence”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villamil Lopez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imaizumi et al. (US 2024/0427012).
Villamil Lopez does not discuss ascending and descending orbit and therefore does not disclose grouping the image data by assigning images collected by a satellite in ascending and descending orbit into different respective groups. Imaizumi discloses a synthetic aperture technique where a radar equipped satellite observes points on the earth from two directions of a north-bound (ascending) trajectory and a south-bound (descending) trajectory, the data being grouped together (e.g. [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the method of Villamil Lopez to receive sets of image data from both ascending and descending orbits, differently grouping the sets for processing so that opposite sides of the containers may be observed (e.g. Imaizumi Figure 4) to account for tilt of the lid.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villamil Lopez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Villamil Lopez et al. (“Monitoring of Oil Tank Filling With Spaceborne SAR Using Coherent Scatters”).
Villamil Lopez is not found to indicate the math for determining the height of the lid relative to the bottom edge and therefore does not specify that this comprises determining a height of the lid based on the distance between the feature corresponding to the bottom edge of the storage container and the feature corresponding to the lid and a look angle from which the satellite collects the corresponding image data. However in clearly related work, Villamil Lopez et al. specifies this determination (page 5641, equation 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed with a reasonable expectation of success to implement the determining of the lid height in Villamil Lopez via the equation provided in Villamil Lopez et al. in order to obtain robust and accurate estimates (page 5654, conclusion).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villamil Lopez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sanjuan-Ferrer (“A New Detection Algorithm for Coherent Scatterers in SAR Data”).
Villamil Lopez is not found to specify a resolution, but does indicate high resolution is desired and makes reference to Sanjuan-Ferrer (translation page 4, top paragraph). Sanjuan-Ferrer discloses a SAR having resolution of up to a few centimeters (Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use high resolution SAR such that the height of the lid may be determined with high resolution as is desired by Villamil Lopez on the order of centimeters for the conventional advantage of providing accurate identification as identified by Sanjuan-Ferrer (Introduction), yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights