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
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are amended.
Objections to the drawing are withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment of the specification/drawings.
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. A new rejection necessitated by amendment of claim 9 is applied.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended claims are integrated into the practical application of estimating the angles of arrival of noncircular signals impinging on a sensor array, by theoretically solving the optimum value of one variable in the two-variable cost function. It not only outperforms existing methods but also has lower computational complexity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. Examiner notes that a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The solution to the problem, as claimed by the applicant, must recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner has examined the claims and has not found any elements that fulfill this requirement. For at least these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the presence of limitations that are not rejected by prior art should indicate that the 101 rejection should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. As recited in MPEP 2106.05.I, an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1: A method, for estimating the arrival angles of noncircular signals impinging on a sensor array, the method comprising:
sampling the received signals to obtain snapshot data x(n), n = 1, … , N when K noncircular signals are incident on a linear array from θ ={θ1, …, θk} where θk is the arrival angle of the kth signal;
obtaining a decoupled vector for a separated signal which is found through signal separation from the snapshot data;
finding a function of two variables for the separated signal by using the decoupled vector, where the two variables are θ and ϕ related to its arrival angle and initial phase, respectively;
obtaining a cost function of θ from the two-variable function by theoretically solving the optimum value of ϕ; and
estimating the angle of arrival of the separated signal through the optimization of the cost function of θ.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”:
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim 1 is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim(s), the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. For example, obtaining a vector, finding a function of two variable, obtaining a cost function, and estimating an angle of arrival are all theoretical (see claim 1 line 13) and can be performed with algorithms or explicit equations as outlined in the instant application.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
A method, when K noncircular signals are incident on a linear array from θ = {θ1, …, θk} where θk is the arrival angle of the kth signal, comprising:
Choi, "Alternating projection for maximum-likelihood source localization using eigen decomposition," in IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 73-75, April 1999, doi: 10.1109/97.752057, teaches, “Consider an array of m sensors on which c narrow-band signals are incident. Let the angles of arrival of the signals be θ = (θ1, θ2, …, θc) where θK denotes that of the kth signal..”, see Section I.
Choi, "ESPRIT-Based Coherent Source Localization With Forward and Backward Vectors," in IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 6416-6420, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.1109/TSP.2010.2077634, teaches, “Consider a uniform linear array with M sensors, on which K directional signals impinge from θ1, …, θK where θK denotes the DOA of the kth signal.”, see Section II.
sampling the received signals to obtain snapshot data x(n), n = 1, … , N;
Zeng (CN 115219981) teaches, “The number of sampling snapshots at each monitoring station is J=400, …”, see [n0114]).
Choi, "Alternating projection for maximum-likelihood source localization using eigen decomposition," in IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 73-75, April 1999, doi: 10.1109/97.752057, teaches, “Consider an array of m sensors on which c narrow-band signals are incident. Let the angles of arrival of the signals be θ = (θ1, θ2, …, θc) where θK denotes that of the kth signal … When N snapshots are available from the array …”, see Section I.
Examiner notes that sampling a signal is routine in many arts, as noted above, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The independent claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-15 provide additional features/steps which further limit the abstract idea of the independent claim without adding any additional elements that would integrate the abstract limitations into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are not eligible under 35 U.S.C 101 as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
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.
Claim 9 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 9 recites “the steering vector for a direction and the steering vector matrix for the arrival angles can be, at time , represented as and , respectively”. It appears there is missing text making the limitation unreadable.
Analysis of Prior Art
With regards to Claim 1,
Ning (CN 109521392) teaches a method, when K noncircular signals are incident on a linear array from θ = {θ1, …, θk} where θk is the arrival angle of the kth signal (“The present invention relates to the field of target positioning technology, and in particular to a method and device for underwater one-dimensional DOA estimation in an unknown sound speed environment based on a non-circular signal and an L-shaped linear array.”, see [0002]; “assuming that the total number of underwater targets is K, the one-dimensional acoustic wave incident angle of the kth target is expressed as θk, θk∈[0,π], k=1,2,…,K. [i.e., arrival angle of the kth signal]”, see [0012]).
Zeng (CN 115219981) teaches sampling the received signals to obtain snapshot data x(n), n = 1, … , N (i.e., “The number of sampling snapshots at each monitoring station is J=400, …”, see [n0114]).
Choi, "Alternating projection for maximum-likelihood source localization using eigen decomposition," in IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 73-75, April 1999, doi: 10.1109/97.752057, teaches sampling the received signals to obtain snapshot data x(n), n = 1, … , N (“Consider an array of m sensors on which c narrow-band signals are incident. Let the angles of arrival of the signals be θ = (θ1, θ2, …, θc) where θK denotes that of the kth signal … When N snapshots are available from the array …”, see Section I).
Sawada (US 20080215651) teaches obtaining a decoupled vector for one signal which is found through signal separation from the snapshot data (“One approach to the blind signal separation is signal separation using Independent Component Analysis (ICA). In the approach using ICA, a separation matrix W(f) of N rows and M columns and a separated signal vector Y(f, τ)=W(f)X(f, τ) (5) are calculated solely from the mixed-signal vector X(f, τ) [i.e., snapshot data]. Here, the separation matrix W(f) is calculated such that the elements (separated signals) Y1(f, τ), . . . , YN(f, τ) of the separated signal vector Y(f, τ)=[Y1(f, τ), . . . , YN(f, τ)]T are independent of each other [i.e., decoupled vector].”, see [0011]).
Wang (CN 113253195) teaches estimating the angle of arrival through the optimization of the cost function of θ. (“… constructing a cost function for the angle parameter [i.e., θ]. The cost function is then solved and a one-dimensional spectrum peak search [i.e., optimization of cost function of θ] with twice the target number is performed to obtain the wave departure angle and wave arrival angle [i.e., estimating the angle of arrival] that can be automatically paired.”, see [n0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to Claim 1, the above references do not teach:
finding a function of two variables for the separated signal by using the decoupled vector, where the two variables are θ and ϕ related to its arrival angle and initial phase, respectively;
obtaining a cost function of θ from the two-variable function by theoretically solving the optimum value of ϕ; and
estimating the angle of arrival of the separated signal.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CATHERINE T RASTOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-0349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Allana Lewin Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights