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 .
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 1-5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations that are considered to be mathematical and data processing. 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)). The 101 guidance instructs us to 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. As best understood, the claims contain limitations are directed to mathematical calculations and data processing, as is similar to Electric Power Group, Benson and Flook.
Specifically, the claims obtain data and process the data using various algorithms and mathematical concepts to make a determination based on the processed data; mathematical formulas, equations or calculations to provide the output, these will all fall under the category of Mathematical Concepts and along with mental processes they are considered to be abstract. See the updated 101 guidance issued in October 2019, sections A and C.
Analysis of the claims
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: calculating a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of the input radar signals; identifying a peak amplitude of the DFT, wherein: the plurality of radar elements is N radar elements, and the DFT has K frequency points ;in response to a determination that K is greater than or equal to N and less than 2N, adjusting a phase of the DFT; designating a frequency corresponding to the peak amplitude of the DFT as an initial frequency estimate; selecting a first neighboring point of the DFT based on the initial frequency estimate; selecting a second neighboring point of the DFT based on the initial frequency estimate; in response to a determination that a first criterion is met, performing a refinement operation, wherein the first criterion is met when K is (i) greater than N and (ii) less than 2N; and in response to a determination that the first criterion is not met: generating a first value based on an amplitude of the first neighboring point of the DFT; generating a second value based on an amplitude of the second neighboring point of the DFT; calculating a generalized interpolation value based on a generalized discrete DFT interpolation, wherein the generalized discrete DFT interpolation is based on: N and K, the first value, the second value, and the peak amplitude; and generating a fine frequency estimate of the input radar signals by summing the initial frequency estimate and the generalized interpolation value.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than mathematical concepts and processing of data and generation of an estimate based on the result of the data processing which encompass the use of mathematical operations or can be performed as a mental process 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).
The claim recites a first additional element of “generating a first/second value based on an amplitude of the first/second neighboring point of the DFT”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data processing. It is necessary generate values that can be processed to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites a second additional element of “generating a fine frequency estimate…based on the fine frequency estimate, generating an output” This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data processing. It is necessary provide some sort of output or result based on data processing within the claim. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application. The limitation generates an output but it does not clearly claim that the output is used as in claim 15 for example.
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, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and providing an output (estimation/determination) of a result.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no elements in Claim 1 that appear to clearly have any actionable steps other than making a determination or outputting a result which would be mere extra-solution activity.
As is best understood Claim 1 is directed to gathering data for processing by a processor or processor based elements (although not claimed) and there are no explicit structural elements claimed in these claims that would be considered enough to make the claims non-abstract as the heart of the claim is directed to abstract processing steps. As claim 1 is a method of processing, there is the assumption of there being processor within the claim. Claim 1 also claims that the signals are received by a radar elements, but reception is not significantly more as it has to be a part of the operation in order for the method to work does not add anything significant to the claim in the way of operation or structure. The use of generic/well known elements and general processors/computers for the mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as significantly more. It is not claimed what happens after the final generation of an estimate step. How is the is the data used, is it transmitted or output in some manner for use, does the system perform another task based on the determination or is the operation merely used for determining most likely position. As currently claimed the limitations are just an operation of determining an estimate without anything that would be considered significantly more, the operation of processing data to determine a position has been found to be an abstract idea.
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 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the assumed processor is equal to a machine being merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Receiving data is basic data gathering and would not provide significantly more and is insignificant extra-solution activity as the use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). The processor also does` not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a “computer system.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). There is no indication that the assumed CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device.
Therefore, these limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
There are no limitations in the independent or the dependent claims that would make the processor/computer change in operation in a manner that would make it work in a way that is new and not capable of being done on a generic processor/computer. The processor in these claims performs merely as a tool and does not appear to provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer. Absent evidence to the contrary, claims 1-5, 13 and 14 merely rely on the processing of data. Making a determination as a result of processed data is well known and conventional.
Claims 2-5, 13 and 14 expand on the processing/mathematical concepts limitations by claim limitations directed to defining steps of the processing, setting values and use of the processed data and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-5, 13 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Taken alone or as an ordered combination, the limitations of claims do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Using obtained values from the computational operations is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-5, 13 and 14 merely rely on generic components as a tool to apply the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea to generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. While the newly provided guidance of December 2025 states that “When evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere “generic computer components” without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system.” There are no limitations stating that the any assumed structural elements behave in a non-conventional manner or that the assumed processor is using collected and stored data for anything more than evaluation. All other dependent claims build upon the abstract idea and do not result in significantly more or a practical application and merely just expand on how the software and algorithms operate to process the data. There is no claim to how the processed data is used besides simply making a determination or what tangible step is taken once the processing is done that would link the processing of data to practical application or an actual actionable step. While the algorithms and calculation processing may be novel, novelty does not change the claim from being an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18, 20 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Referring to Claim 15, the prior art of record does not disclose nor suggest it be an obvious modification wherein calculating a generalized interpolation value based on a generalized discrete DFT interpolation, wherein the generalized discrete DFT interpolation is based on: N and K, the first value, the second value, and the peak amplitude; and generating a fine frequency estimate of the input radar signals by summing the initial frequency estimate and the generalized interpolation value; and
outputting the fine frequency estimate for autonomous control of a vehicle associated with the plurality of radar elements.
Claims 16-18, 20 and 21 are dependent on Claim 15 and allowed for the same reason.
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.”
Claims 8 and 22 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amended 101 rejection as stated above is in response to the newly added limitation. The Examiner recommends re-wording the limitation similar to Claim 15 in order to make it clear the output it is actually used for controlling the vehicle and not just generated as a response to the processing.
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 WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights