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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/5/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 200, 208, 400, 408. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 19 depends on claim 1 in addition to “any preceding claim”.
Claim 21 is objected to because the phrasing: “The method according to claim 1, the first and/or second image data are…” appears to be grammatically incorrect (e.g. missing “wherein” or the like).
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 1-9, 12-17, 19-21, and 23 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 first image data collected by a satellite in orbit around Earth, wherein the first image data corresponds to a synthetic aperture radar image of a first area that includes the dry-bulk stockpile;
receiving second image data collected by a satellite in orbit around the Earth, wherein the second image data corresponds to a synthetic aperture radar image of a second area that includes the dry-bulk stockpile; and
applying radargrammetric analysis to the first and second image data to determine one or more properties of the dry-bulk stockpile.”
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.
Claim 1 recites “applying radargrammetric analysis to the first and second image data to determine one or more properties of the dry-bulk stockpile”.
Applying such analysis encompass mental observations or evaluations, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper. Such analysis also encompasses mathematical equations concepts, e.g. [0058] of the instant specification.
Thus, the claims recite mental process and/or mathematical concept, 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).
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “receiving first image data collected by a satellite in orbit around Earth, wherein the first image data corresponds to a synthetic aperture radar image of a first area that includes the dry-bulk stockpile;” and
“receiving second image data collected by a satellite in orbit around the Earth, wherein the second image data corresponds to a synthetic aperture radar image of a second area that includes the dry-bulk stockpile”.
These steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to perform the analysis of the recited judicial exception. The steps represent insignificant extra-solution activity and do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
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 steps of receiving first and second image data is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality, and as shown in the disclosure, is well-understood (e.g. [0044]). Notably, the claim does not require as part of the method actual collection of data, though it is submitted such is likewise well-understood. Therefore, this limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity and does not amount to significantly more.
Concerning claims 2 and 21, the claims further detail the data received and do not introduce any additional elements.
Claims 3-9, 12-17, 19, and 20 merely add additional mental or mathematical determinations, analysis, and/or further detail the radargrammetric analysis of claim 1. They do not introduce any additional elements.
Claim 23 is directed to a data processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to perform the method of claim 1. As such, claim 23 recites the additional element of a processor.
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 processor generally applies the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mental process or mathematical concept) without placing any limitation on how the processor operates. The claim invokes generic computer elements as a tool for performing the recited idea. 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 or amount to significantly more.
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.
Claims 3-8 and 21 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 3 depends on claim 1 and establishes a contingent step of applying radargrammetric analysis to the first image data and second image data to determine properties of the dry-bulk stockpile, i.e. if the first and second image data were collected by two or more satellites on different orbits with different look angles. However claim 1 already requires a step of applying radargrammetric analysis to the first image data and second image data to determine properties of the dry-bulk stockpile. It is unclear if claim 3 establishes a second step of applying radargrammetric analysis (“the method further comprising”), or rather if claim 3 is intended to refer back to the analysis established in claim 1. Claims 4-8 depend on claim 3 and are likewise indefinite.
Claim 7 establishes that the method of claim 3 “further” comprises “before applying interferometric analysis”, steps of determining a degree of coherence and verifying it exceeds a threshold. However claim 3 does not always require interferometric analysis, as this is claimed as being part of the method only under certain conditions. As such, it is likewise not necessarily required in claim 7. It is unclear therefore if claim 7 requires the determining and verifying steps to be performed regardless of whether interferometric analysis is performed, or only in a case where interferometric analysis is performed. The latter is presumed for the purposes of examination however rewording is required.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 8, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 imposes limitation that the radargrammetric or interferometric analysis are “only” applied if the parallax angle meets respective conditions. However per claim 3, on which claim 8 depends, radargrammetric or interferometric analysis are required to be performed.
Claim 7 similarly seeks to impose limitation that the interferometric analysis is “only” applied if a degree of coherence exceeds a threshold. However per claim 3, on which claim 8 depends, the interferometric analysis is performed regardless of coherence.
The claims therefore include embodiments which do not include all the limitations of a claim on which they depend. For example, in claim 3 for an embodiment of the method where the first and second image data were collected by one or two satellites on the same orbit around the Earth with substantially similar look angles, interferometric analysis must be performed in order to be infringed. However claims 7 and 8 can be infringed without the interferometric analysis depending on coherence or parallax angle.
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) 1-7, 9, 15-17, 19-21, and 23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka et al. (US 2008/0291081) in view of de Masson d'Autume (WO 2024/009119).
Regarding claims 1, 20, 21, and 23, Nonaka discloses a processor and method of monitoring, the method comprising: receiving first image data collected by a satellite in orbit around the Earth, wherein the first image data corresponds to a synthetic aperture radar image of a first area; receiving second image data collected by a satellite in orbit around the Earth, wherein the second image data corresponds to a synthetic aperture radar image of a second area; and applying radargrammetric analysis to the first and second image data to determine one or more properties of the area, e.g. height (Figure 3, [0029]-[0031]).
Nonaka mentions “buildings and vegetations” in the first area and generally observing “ground surface” or “land cover” change but does not specifically identify a dry-bulk stockpile be included in the area imaged. However, de Masson d'Autume discloses a need for stockpile monitoring via synthetic aperture radar (page 1, lines 5-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to apply the imaging and analysis of Nonaka to include monitoring of dry-bulk stockpiles, e.g. in order to anticipate the evolution of material prices with high frequency (de Masson d'Autume page 1, lines 14-28).
Regarding claim 2, Nonaka discloses the first image data is collected by a first satellite on a first orbit around the Earth and the second image data is collected by a second satellite on a second orbit around the Earth, wherein the first orbit is different from the second orbit ([0027], [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, the scope of the claim is indefinite as detailed above, however Nonaka discloses that the first and second image data are collected by two satellites on different orbits with different look angles (Figure 3) and applying radargrammetric analysis. Nonaka is therefore considered to have “determined” such and the limitations required are performed in the method of Nonaka as modified by de Masson d'Autume for dry-bulk stockpile monitoring as best can be determined.
Regarding claims 4-7, the claims provide additional detail of interferometric analysis introduced in claim 3, however such analysis is not required in the embodiment rejected in view of Nonaka and de Masson d'Autume. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. (MPEP 2111.04 (II)).
Regarding claim 9, Nonaka discloses applying radargrammetric analysis comprises determining an elevation model of a radargrammetry area based on: a comparison between the first image data and the second image data, (Fig 3, [0030]) the area defined by an overlap between the first and second areas (clearly, the first and second data must be of overlapping areas for radargrammetry). Nonaka shows a parallax angle between a first line of sight from the satellite that collected the first image data, and a second line of sight from the satellite that collected the second image data (Figure 3). The analysis is “based on” this angle at least in that it is responsible for differences in the image data and provides the fundamental basis for radargrammetry.
Regarding claims 15-17, satellite relative position, matching points, and transforming slant range to ground range as claimed are implicitly disclosed in the by Nonaka in teaching radargrammetry, as these represent fundamental components of radargrammetry itself using a satellite based SAR image pair.
Regarding claim 19, Nonaka discloses change detection over time ([0038]) and the method of Nonaka as modified in view of de Masson d'Autume as applied to claim 1 compares properties of each of the dry-bulk stockpiles with previous results to detect a change in order to monitor the evolution of material and pricing in turn (de Masson d'Autume page 1, lines 14-16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Solberg discloses heights may be derived from SAR data in two or more ways: by phase differences, e.g. by means of Interferometric SAR (InSAR), or by parallaxes e.g. by means of radargrammetry, in a SAR image pair.
Lee discloses applying radargrammetry to SAR image data and provides a mathematical disclosure concerning parallax.
Nascetti et al. discloses a radargrammetry technique from a SAR COSMO-SkyMed SpotLight stereo pair with a resolution on the ground of 1m.
Pennings et al. discloses generating a photo-realistic 3D model of a scene using InSAR and/or stereo radargrammetry.
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