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 .
Applicant’s 02/17/2026 Amendments/Arguments, which directly amended the
specification; amended claims 3-5, 9-10, 13-15 and 19-20; added claims 21 and 22; and cancelled claims 1, 2 and 11-12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 13 line 11 to Pg. 15 line 15, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claim 1, 2, 9-12, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. §112 and 35 U.S.C. §101. Applicant is directed to the 35 U.S.C. §112 and 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections below.
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 3-10 and 13-22 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.
Regarding claims 21-22, it is unclear and not readily understood what is meant by “A radar system comprising at least one processor and memory configured to: transmit radar signals “or “transmitting, with at least one processor and memory of a radar system, radar signals”. The language is not clear in general and the specification is not found to clarify the meaning. Is the indicated transmitter 204 transmitting (Specification [0056]) or is it the processor and/or memory? Further, it is unclear what it would mean for a processor and memory to transmit “radar signals”. Clarification is required, with reference to the disclosure to clarify the intended limitation to be imposed on the invention.
Claims 3-10 and 13-20 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
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 3-9, 13-19 and 21-22 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. Claims 3-9, 13-19 and 21-22 recite a system and method for stepped frequency waveform Radar estimation of target range and velocity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 21 (and its dependents) recites a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 22 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claims 21-22 recite a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality of mathematical concepts and mental process as defined at least by the claimed steps of:
performing, with the at least one processor and memory, range fast Fourier transform (FFT) processing, including a first domain FFT, and Doppler FFT processing, including a second domain FFT, on the receive values to generate range FFT values and Doppler FFT values and
estimating, with the at least one processor and memory, a range and a velocity of the target based on the range FFT values and Doppler FFT values, wherein the estimated range, r, and the estimated velocity, v.
The step of “performing… range fast Fourier transform (FFT) processing…, and Doppler FFT processing” may be performed by a series of mathematical operations accomplished through specific mathematical calculations and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts.
The step of “estimating… a range and a velocity of the target based on the range FFT values and Doppler FFT values” may performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e.range and Doppler FFT) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception 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 exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The only additional elements of claim 21 is “transmit radar signals within a frame having N radar chirps, the N radar chirps having a stepped frequency waveform such that an initial transmit frequency and an end transmit frequency are changed for each subsequent chirp within the N radar chirps, and with N being greater than 1; receive and sample radar signals reflected from a target to generate receive values from the received and sampled radar signals”. For claim 22, the only additional element is “transmitting, with at least one processor and memory of a radar system, radar signals within a frame having N radar chirps, the N radar chirps having a stepped frequency waveform such that an initial transmit frequency and an end transmit frequency are changed for each subsequent chirp within the N radar chirps, and with N being greater than 1”. Such elements, at a high-level of generality, merely recite data gathering by receiving transmitting and receiving data. As such, such steps are insignificant extra¬-solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, the claims recited the method as being performed by a processor and memory. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality. The processor and memory are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 13-19 do not connect to a practical activity, they simply clarify further details of the mathematical operations and mental processes. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the totality of mathematical operations and mental processes are not anchored in a specific application, the acts of information processing do not link to or result in affecting an additional system or result in any stated output. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
As stated above, claims 3-10 and 13-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for performing FFT calculations and estimating which requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230324537 discloses a radar system with transmitting circuitry to generate a frequency-modulated output that includes an up-chirp and a down-chirp. The radar system includes receiving circuitry configured to: receive radar returns from a target, calculate a first frequency difference based on the up-chirps and calculate a second frequency difference based on the down-chirps. The radar system calculates an unambiguous but coarse estimate of the Doppler frequency shift corresponding to the target radial velocity relative to the radar from the first and second frequency differences. The system also calculates a fine but ambiguous estimate of the Doppler frequency shift by using multiple chirps either from the same triangular waveform or from a separate waveform. The system calculates an unambiguous and accurate Doppler frequency shift estimate for the target by combining the unambiguous but coarse estimate of the Doppler frequency shift and the fine but ambiguous estimate of the Doppler frequency shift.
US 20200393553 discloses a radar transmitter which includes a plurality of transmit antennas that transmit a plurality of transmission signals using a multiplexing transmission, and a transmission circuit. The transmission circuit applies phase rotation amounts corresponding to combinations of Doppler shift amounts and code sequences to the plurality of transmission signals. Each of the combinations of the Doppler shift amounts and the code sequences has at least one different from other combination. The number of multiplexes of the code sequence corresponding to at least one of the Doppler shift amounts in the combinations is different from the number of multiplexing of code sequences corresponding to the remaining Doppler shift amounts.
US 20200309939 discloses a radar system including a radar integrated circuit which includes a timing engine, a local oscillator, and a modulator. The timing engine is configured to generate one or more chirp control signals. The local oscillator is configured to receive the one or more chirp control signals and generate a frame including a first sequence of chirps according to the one or more chirp control signals. The modulator is configured to modulate the first sequence of chirps to generate a second sequence of chirps so the frame includes the first sequence of chirps and the second sequence of chirps offset by a first frequency value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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)272-6878. 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights