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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of IN202341009285 filed 2/13/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2022, in pages 8-10 for 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitations in the claims are mere data gathering and data processing, not used for any improvement in practical application. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine compression ratios.
Amendment to claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17 and 19-20 has been acknowledged.
Cancellation of claims 2 and 18 has been acknowledged.
Addition of new claims 21-22 has been acknowledged.
Amendment to independent claims 1 an d17 overcomes 102/103 rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1-11 and 13: a compression estimation circuit…configured to
Claim 13: a compression circuit…configured to
Claim 14: a compression engine configured to
Claim 15: a first compression engine configured to
Claim 15: a second compression engine configured to
Claim 16: a storage circuit configured to
A specialized function must be supported in the specification by the computer and the algorithm that the computer uses to perform the claimed specialized function.
The following have been identified as the structure for the compression estimation circuit, compression circuit, compression engine, first compression engine, second compression engine and the storage circuit:
¶[005], ¶[0021], ¶[0028], ¶[0029], ¶[0038], ¶[0040], ¶[0045-51], ¶[0057-62], ¶[0065-66], ¶[0069], ¶[0071], ¶[0075-76] of the published specification provides an algorithm that accomplishes the claimed function associated with the claimed compression estimation circuit and Figure 1 discloses the Digital Signal Processor 126 on which the algorithm is processed. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for the compression estimation circuit.
¶[005], ¶[0017], ¶[0021], ¶[0028-31], ¶[0044-45], ¶[0049], ¶[0077-82] of the published specification provides an algorithm that accomplishes the claimed function associated with the compression circuit and Figure 1 discloses the Digital Signal Processor 126 on which the algorithm is processed. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for the compression circuit.
¶[0055], ¶[0066], ¶[0072], ¶[0074], ¶[0077] of the published specification provides an algorithm that accomplishes the claimed function associated with the compression engine and Figure 1 discloses the processing device 126 on which the algorithm is processed. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for the compression engine.
¶[0077] of the published specification provides an algorithm that accomplishes the claimed function associated with the first compression engine and Figure 1 discloses the Digital Signal Processor 126 on which the algorithm is processed. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for the first compression engine.
¶[0077] of the published specification provides an algorithm that accomplishes the claimed function associated with the second compression engine and Figure 1 discloses the Digital Signal Processor 126 on which the algorithm is processed. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for the second compression engine.
¶[0021], ¶[0028], ¶[0030-31], ¶[0073], ¶[0078], ¶[0082] of the published specification provides an algorithm that accomplishes the claimed function associated with the storage circuit and Figure 1 discloses the Digital Signal Processor 126 on which the algorithm is processed. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for the storage circuit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A system, comprising:
a radar sensor circuit configured to: receive a first set of sensor data associated with a first radar chirp signal;
generate a first set of range data associated with the first set of sensor data which includes first range data for a first range bin and second range data for a second range bin;
a compression estimation circuit coupled to the radar sensor circuit and configured to: determine a first compression ratio for the first range data based on the first range data; and
determine a second compression ratio for the second range data based on the second range data.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a system including at least one structure. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of generate a first set of range data associated with the first set of sensor data which includes first range data for a first range bin and second range data for a second range bin; determine a first compression ratio for the first range data based on the first range data; determine a second compression ratio for the second range data based on the second range data.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. That is, other than reciting “a radar sensor circuit configured to: receive a first set of sensor data associated with a first radar chirp signal; a compression estimation circuit coupled to the radar sensor circuit,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of “the compression estimation circuit,” the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine a first and second range data. The mere nominal recitation of “the compression estimation circuit” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a radar sensor circuit configured to: receive a first set of sensor data associated with a first radar chirp signal; a compression estimation circuit coupled to the radar sensor circuit;
The receiving data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “sensor circuit”, “compression estimation circuit” of the system merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components. The data processing system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensor is all conventional sensor, and the specification does not provide any indication that the compression estimation circuit is anything other than a conventional computer within a system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 17
Claim 17. A method, comprising:
receiving a first set of sensor data associated with a first radar chirp signal;
generating a first set of range data associated with the first set of sensor data, wherein the first set of range data comprises first range data for a first range bin and second range data for a second range bin;
determining a first compression ratio for the first range data based on the first range data and a second compression ratio for the second range data based on the second range data; and
compressing the first range data based on the first compression ratio and the second range data based on the second compression ratio.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of receiving a first set of sensor data associated with a first radar chirp signal; generating a first set of range data associated with the first set of sensor data, wherein the first set of range data comprises first range data for a first range bin and second range data for a second range bin; determining a first compression ratio for the first range data based on the first range data and a second compression ratio for the second range data based on the second range data; and compressing the first range data based on the first compression ratio and the second range data based on the second compression ratio.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or signal processing. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine compression ratios.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that there is no additional elements recited that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The receiving data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensor is all conventional sensor, and the specification does not provide any indication that the compression estimation circuit is anything other than a conventional computer within a system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed if 101 rejection is overcome
Allowable subject matter:
“generate a second set of range data associated with the second set of sensor data which includes third range data corresponding to a third range bin and fourth range data corresponding to a fourth range bin; and a compression estimation circuit coupled to the radar sensor circuit and configured to determine a first compression ratio for the first range data and a second compression ratio for the second range data based on the first range data; and determine a second third compression ratio for the second thjrd range data and a fourth compression ratio for the fourth range data based respectively on the first compression ratio and the second compression ratio.”
Closet prior art found to be:
Claims 3-16 depends on allowable claim 1, and therefore are also allowed if corresponding 101 rejection is overcome.
Claim 17 is allowed if 101 rejection is overcome.
Allowable subject matter:
“generating a second set of range data associated with the second set of sensor data which includes third range data corresponding to a third range bin and fourth range data corresponding to a fourth range bin: determining a first compression ratio for the first range data based on the first range data and a second compression ratio for the second range data based on the second range data; and determining a third compression ratio for the third range data and a fourth compression ratio for the fourth range data based respectively on the first compression ratio and the second compression ratio.”
Claims 19-22 depends on allowable claim 17, and therefore are also allowed if corresponding 101 rejection is overcome.
Closet prior art found to be:
Yoffee et al. (US 2023/0144333 A1) describes a first radar compression design may be configured for the range processing, which may be based on radar data streaming from RF; paragraph 20: Figure 16: a first graph depicting first compression ratios corresponding to a plurality of range bins according to a first quantization scheme…a second radar compression design may be configured for the Doppler processing, which may “jump” between chirp (paragraph 258); a second graph depicting second compression ratios corresponding to the plurality of range bins according to a second quantization scheme (paragraph 20: Figure 16).
John Wison et al. (US 2021/0208236 A1) describes the compression technique may comprise excluding, from the compressed radar data, values that fail to meet a threshold intensity value, a threshold Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) value, or a threshold Signal-to-Cluster-Noise Ratio (SCNR) value. In such embodiments, the one or more parameters may comprise the threshold intensity value, the threshold SNR value, or the threshold SCNR value…the compression technique may comprise determining a median intensity value of intensity values of at least a portion of the radar data, and excluding, from the compressed radar data, intensity values from the at least a portion of the radar data that are less than the median intensity value multiplied by a multiplier …the one or more parameters comprise the multiplier; paragraph 124: Clause 6: The method of clauses 1, 2, or 5 wherein the compression technique comprises excluding, from the compressed radar data, values that fail to meet a threshold intensity value, a threshold Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) value, or a threshold Signal-to-Cluster-Noise Ratio (SCNR) value (paragraph 76); the one or more parameters comprise the threshold intensity value, the threshold SNR value, or the threshold SCNR value (paragraph 125: Clause 7);: the compression technique comprises: determining a median intensity value of intensity values of at least a portion of the radar data…and excluding, from the compressed radar data, intensity values from the at least a portion of the radar data that are less than the median intensity value multiplied by a multiplier (paragraph 126-128: Clause 8); the compression technique comprises: a constant false alarm rate (CFAR) compression technique, a deep learning compression technique, or a video compression technique (paragraph 130-133: Clause 10).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648