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 9/22/2022, 9/23/2022, and 10/14/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202211160667.9, 202211166367.1, and 202211262317.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim 1 recites a method that obtains, determines, and performs. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for performing interference detection and/or constant false alarm detection on signal units.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1 comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitations recite: obtaining, determining, and performing on a signal (The step of collecting data, analyzing it mathematically and outputting a detection decision falls into the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas since is a mathematical calculation. Even though the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind with a physical aid (pen, paper and/or calculator) to make such calculations, the use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation.)
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally carrying out the steps of collecting data, analyzing it mathematically and outputting a detection decision. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a method does not take the limitations out of the mental process and/or mathematical concepts groupings. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 discloses a signal processing method, which is generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a method.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. 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.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
THEN FOR THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS:
Regarding claims 2-20, the additional limitations “differential sequence, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, integrated circuit, radio device, and a terminal” are NOT directed toward an abstract idea since it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and add significantly more that the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-20 are not directed to an abstract idea and therefore is/are not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenzhen (CN 111832537) in view of Acoustics CAS (CN 113589268).
Regarding claim 1, Shenzhen teaches a signal processing method, applied to performing detection on signal units in a discrete signal to be detected, comprising obtaining, with respect to a respective signal unit of the signal units, a signal statistical characteristic value of a respective discrete point in the respective signal unit (Section 104 and 304, statistical characteristic based on discrete wavelets etc.). Shenzhen fails to teach a threshold.
Acoustics CAS teaches performing interference detection and/or constant false alarm detection on signal units, comprising determining a detection threshold of the respective signal unit (Claim 7, determining a threshold for false-alarm etc.); and based on the detection threshold, performing the constant false alarm detection and/or, determining whether the respective discrete point is subjected to interference (Claim 7, determining a threshold for false-alarm etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a threshold as taught by Acoustics CAS into Shenzhen’s device in order to improve performance.
Regarding claim 17, the combination including Acoustics CAS teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the signal processing method (Page 50/52 under Example 2, computer-readable storage etc.).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenzhen (CN 111832537) in view of Acoustics CAS (CN 113589268) and further in view of Bengtsson et al. (US Pat Pub# 2022/0163651).
Regarding 18, Shenzhen in view of Acoustics CAS teaches the limitations in claim 1. However, Shenzhen and Acoustics CAS fails to teach a transceiver.
Bengtsson teaches an integrated circuit comprising a signal transceiver channel, configured to transmit radio signals, and to receive echo signals formed by the radio signal being reflected by a target; and a signal processing module, configured to perform signal processing (Claim 1, transceiver with radio channels with echo signals reflected etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a transceiver as taught by Bengtsson into a threshold as taught by Acoustics CAS into Shenzhen’s device in order to improve position detecting.
Regarding claim 19, Bengtsson teaches a radio device (Figs. 3a/b), comprising a carrier; an integrated circuit, disposed on the carrier (Sections 0036-0047, radio communication on carriers etc.); an antenna, disposed on the carrier, and configured to transmit and receive radio signals 313/323 (Figs. 3a/b).
Regarding claim 20, Bengtsson teaches a terminal, comprising a device body; a radio device, disposed on the device body, configured to perform target detection and/or communication (Figs. 3a/b and Claim 1, echo signals to detect a target etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW WENDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/ANDREW WENDELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 2/17/2026