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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 02/24/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202010110747.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 and 15-20 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):
performing first interference sensing on first time domain resources, wherein the first time domain resources are a first subset of second time domain resources corresponding to a first time- frequency resource of a first detection apparatus, wherein two adjacent first time domain resources have a same time interval, and wherein the interference sensing is performed on some of the first time domain resources; and
determining, based on a result of the at least one first interference sensing, a second time- frequency resource in the first time-frequency resource for target detection on other first time domain resources
Claims 15 and 20 recite corresponding functions, executable by a processor.
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 “performing first interference sensing on first time domain resources…” and “determining…a second time domain resource for target detection on other first time domain resources”. Claims 15 and 20 recite equivalent functions.
These encompass mental observations or evaluations, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper. Specifically concerning “interference sensing”, the step is broadly set forth with no structural limitation and “sensing” encompasses merely observing and evaluating recorded information.
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).
Claim 1 recites no additional elements.
Claims 15 and 20 reference a processor and memory to be employed in carrying out the abstract idea.
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 memory and processor generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mental process) without placing any limitation on how the processor operates. The claim invokes generic computer elements as a tool for performing the recited idea rather than improving 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 2A, Prong Two, the processor and memory were 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.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 16-19 do not introduce any additional elements. Some claims introduce steps of performing additional “interference sensing” (claims 4, 18) and performing “target detection” (claims 2, 16) which similarly recites no structure and encompasses mental embodiments. The remainder of the claims require only additional “determinations” or further detail the mental processes.
Considered in their entireties, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are directed to an abstract
idea which is not integrated into a practical application and without 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 1-12 and 15-19 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.
Claims 1 and 15 recites the limitation "the at least one first interference sensing" in lines 7 and 10, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear if this limitation applies to the “first interference sensing” introduced above in general or possibly only “one” interference sensing performed on a first time domain resource.
Claims 2-12 and 16-19 depend on claim 1 or 15 and are likewise indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the N sub-frequency domain resources " in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim requires these “N sub-frequency domain resources” to be “mutually prime” with respect to “M” third time domain “sub-time domain resources” but provides no basis for what the “N” resources are so as to establish the scope of the mutually prime requirement.
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) 1-12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 2019/0056476).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a target detection method comprising: performing first interference sensing on first time domain resources (“monitor” phase, Figures 6-7, [0048]), wherein the first time domain resources are a first subset of second time domain resources corresponding to a first time- frequency resource of a first detection apparatus, wherein two adjacent first time domain resources have a same time interval, and wherein the interference sensing is performed on some of the first time domain resources (Figure 7); and determining, based on a result of the at least one first interference sensing, a second time- frequency resource in the first time-frequency resource for target detection on other first time domain resources ([0048]).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Lin discloses the claimed apparatus including processor and storage medium and computer program product for carrying out the method of claim 1 as shown above ([0042], [0069]).
It is noted that applicable to all claims as indicated above, the steps of performing “sensing” and “target detection”, “on” certain “resources” are set forth in a very broad manner without any structural requirements and minimal bounds on what the sensing/detection or numerous referenced “resources” which are interrelated in the claims, frequently in a highly complex manner, actually require. For example, per the independent claims “first interference sensing on first time domain resources” is performed, yet later, “the interference sensing is performed on some of the first time domain resources” (target detection is performed on others). That is for example, when resources or groups of resources are referenced collectively in the claims, this is not interpreted to necessarily require all of such resources. The “time domain resources” are interpreted as any period or instant in time, likewise “time-frequency resources” are interpreted as any frequency or frequency range at a given instant or range in time.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Lin discloses performing at least one target detection on the first time domain resources, wherein at least one first time domain resource used for the at least one target detection does not overlap some of the other first time domain resources (Figures 6 & 7; separate monitoring, active, and idle phases).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Lin discloses the at least one first time domain resource comprises at least three first time domain resources (Figures 6, 7; note the process repeats until radar operation is stopped), wherein the at least three first time domain resources comprise a first group of first time domain resources and a second group of first time domain resources, and wherein a first time interval between two adjacent first time domain resources in the first group of first time domain resources is different from a second time interval between two adjacent first time domain resources in the second group of first time domain resources (note grouping and numbering of resources may be arbitrary; for example in the instant specification where the feature is described, resources 11 and 13 of Figure are identified as a “group”, with 13 and 14 as another “group”; any given selection of time domain resources over the course of target detection operations of Lin may be deemed “groups”, such that time intervals between adjacent resources are different (or indeed the same)).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Lin discloses performing at least one second interference sensing on third time domain resources, wherein the third time domain resources are a second subset of the second time domain resources other than the first time domain resources (Figures 6, 7; note the process repeats until radar operation is stopped).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is indefinite as expressed above and it is therefore not clear what limitation is intended concerning the “mutually prime” requirement. However, as best can be understood, the limitation imposed on the invention is found to be minimal. Note the “resources” assigned various numerical labels impose little limitation, and any given number of “M” or “N” sub-time or sub-frequency domain resources are present with a larger “resource” that spans any amount of time or frequency, as is described by Lin (throughout, e.g. [0051], [0053], [0055]).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Lin discloses a first duration of performing each interference sensing is less than a second duration of each of the first time domain resources ([0048], multiple sub-bands and directions are scanned for interference within one of the first time domain resources).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses meeting at least one of the following conditions:
within a first preset duration, an interference sensing duration is greater than a first duration;
within a second preset duration, the interference sensing duration is less than a second duration;
within a third preset duration, a fifth duration for the target detection is less than a third duration; or
within a fourth preset duration, the interference sensing duration meets a preset condition and is greater than a fourth duration, wherein the preset condition comprises one or a combination of the following conditions:
a second frequency domain resource corresponding to a third time-frequency resource for a third interference sensing is a second subset of third frequency domain resources corresponding to the second time-frequency resource;
the second frequency domain resource partially overlaps a fourth frequency domain resource corresponding to the second time-frequency resource;
a time domain resource corresponding to the third time-frequency resource is a third subset of the first time domain resources; or
the time domain resource is a fourth subset of the second time domain resources (the limitation imposed by the claim is met by Lin at least in that an interference sensing duration within one of the preset monitoring phases is less than a first duration).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Lin discloses determining a first power, a first energy, or a first spectral density of a first signal received on some of the first time domain resources ([0031]); or
receiving indication information on a third time-frequency resource, wherein the indication information indicates a fourth time-frequency resource used by a second detection apparatus to perform second target detection, and determining a second power, a second energy, or a second spectral density of a second signal received on the fourth time-frequency resource;
receiving the second signal on the fourth time-frequency resource and determining the second power, the second energy, or the second spectral density; or determining, based on a third power, a third energy, or a third spectral density of a third signal received on the third time-frequency resource, the second power, the second energy, or the second spectral density ([0031], [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses determining a first interference degree of a third time-frequency resource either based on a first sensing result of a fourth time-frequency resource in the first time-frequency resource or based on second sensing results of fifth time-frequency resources in the first time-frequency resource, wherein a first correspondence exists between the fourth time-frequency resource and the third time-frequency resource; and determining the second time-frequency resource based on the first interference degree, wherein the second time-frequency resource comprises at least one third time-frequency resource (e.g. [0031], a “strong” interference is detected and a time-frequency resource is determined accordingly. Note the “resources” assigned various numerical labels impose little limitation, as no limitation is put on these resources beyond their nature of representing time and/or frequency).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses determining the first interference degree based on an average value of power, energy, or spectral density of signals received on the fifth time-frequency resources; or
determining the first interference degree based on a quantity of at least one fifth time- frequency resource that comprises a second interference degree greater than a preset threshold in the fifth time-frequency resources or a proportion of the at least one fifth time-frequency resource ([0031], threshold).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses determining the second time-frequency resource when the third time-frequency resource belongs to a resource used for the target detection in the first time-frequency resource and the first interference degree is greater than a first threshold ([0031] i.e. a time-frequency resource is determined when the threshold is exceeded and the interference would interfere with target detection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al. disclose determining if a radar detection apparatus is subject to interference after sending a first radar signal on a first time-frequency resource, and adjusting priorities of a7 plurality of time-frequency resources.
Richter, Moss et al. and Kishigami disclose performing interference sensing on time domain resources and determining modifications to radar target detection.
Melzer et al. disclose performing interference measurements during time periods between radar measurements.
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