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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 8 February, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 2-4 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 2 recites “the extraction condition” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the limitation refers to the same or different from “a preset extraction condition” previously recited in claim 1 which claim 2 depends on. For purpose of Examination, the Examiner would interpret them to refer to the same limitation. Additionally, claim 2 recites “the magnitude” which renders the claim indefinite, because the limitation lacks antecedent basis, such that the scope of the claim would not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 recites “the extraction condition” and “the magnitude” which render the claim indefinite for the same reason(s) as claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “the extraction condition” and “the magnitude” which render the claim indefinite for the same reason(s) as claim 2.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6:
Claim 1:
A signal generation apparatus comprising: an extraction unit configured to extract part of a frequency waveform as an extracted waveform, the frequency waveform being a waveform represented by a function of frequency, the part of the frequency waveform corresponding to frequencies satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that amplitude of the frequency waveform is high; and a conversion unit configured to convert the extracted waveform extracted by the extraction unit into a time waveform, which is a waveform represented by a function of time, and generate the time waveform as a signal.
Claim 5:
A signal generation program for causing a computer to function as: an extraction unit configured to extract part of a frequency waveform as an extracted waveform, the frequency waveform being a waveform represented by a function of frequency, the part of the frequency waveform corresponding to frequencies satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that amplitude of the frequency waveform is high; and a conversion unit configured to convert the extracted waveform extracted by the extraction unit into a time waveform, which is a waveform represented by a function of time, and generate the time waveform as a signal.
Claim 6:
A signal generation method comprising: extracting part of a frequency waveform as an extracted waveform, the frequency waveform being a waveform represented by a function of frequency, the part of the frequency waveform corresponding to frequencies satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that amplitude of the frequency waveform is high; converting the extracted waveform into a time waveform which is a waveform represented by a function of time; and generating the time waveform as a signal.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 5 recites a series of functional steps, and therefore, is a process. Claim 6 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “a conversion unit configured to convert the extracted waveform extracted by the extraction unit into a time waveform, which is a waveform represented by a function of time”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (algorithms, spatial relationships, domain transformation, geometry, etc.). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “an extraction unit configured to extract part of a frequency waveform as an extracted waveform, the frequency waveform being a waveform represented by a function of frequency, the part of the frequency waveform corresponding to frequencies satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that amplitude of the frequency waveform is high […] and generate the time waveform as a signal” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. It represents no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the apparatus is intended to be used. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The limitation(s) of “an extraction unit configured to extract part of a frequency waveform as an extracted waveform, the frequency waveform being a waveform represented by a function of frequency, the part of the frequency waveform corresponding to frequencies satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that amplitude of the frequency waveform is high […] and generate the time waveform as a signal” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 are ineligible.
Claims 2-4:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-4 recite an apparatus, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-4 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea and/or represent an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-4 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-6 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moss et al. (US 2018/0356495 A1 “MOSS”).
Regarding claim 1, MOSS discloses a signal generation apparatus comprising:
an extraction unit (the threshold module 28 [0051 & FIG. 4]) configured to extract part of a frequency waveform as an extracted waveform, the frequency waveform being a waveform represented by a function of frequency (the input digital IF signal 20 is transformed to a frequency domain by the FFT module 27, and the acquired digital spectral signal 34 is processed in the threshold module 28 [0051 & FIG. 4]), the part of the frequency waveform corresponding to frequencies satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that amplitude of the frequency waveform is high (the threshold module 28 is arranged to identify and retain sample points with signal components that exceed a certain level threshold, while all other sample points are set to zero [0052 & FIG. 4]); (the complex vector of the digital spectral signal 34 is used to identify the largest targets, i.e. the signal components that have an amplitude level that exceeds the certain level threshold [0058])
and a conversion unit (the inverse FFT module 29 [0053 & FIG. 4]) configured to convert the extracted waveform extracted by the extraction unit into a time waveform, which is a waveform represented by a function of time, and generate the time waveform as a signal (the threshold module 28 is arranged to output a spectral repair signal 35 that is fed into the inverse FFT module 29 that is arranged to transform the spectral repair signal 35 back to the time domain [0053 & FIG. 4]).
Regarding claim 5, MOSS discloses a signal generation program for causing a computer to function as:
an extraction unit (the threshold module 28 [0051 & FIG. 4]) configured to extract part of a frequency waveform as an extracted waveform, the frequency waveform being a waveform represented by a function of frequency (the input digital IF signal 20 is transformed to a frequency domain by the FFT module 27, and the acquired digital spectral signal 34 is processed in the threshold module 28 [0051 & FIG. 4]), the part of the frequency waveform corresponding to frequencies satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that amplitude of the frequency waveform is high (the threshold module 28 is arranged to identify and retain sample points with signal components that exceed a certain level threshold, while all other sample points are set to zero [0052 & FIG. 4]); (the complex vector of the digital spectral signal 34 is used to identify the largest targets, i.e. the signal components that have an amplitude level that exceeds the certain level threshold [0058])
and a conversion unit configured to convert the extracted waveform extracted by the extraction unit into a time waveform, which is a waveform represented by a function of time, and generate the time waveform as a signal (the threshold module 28 is arranged to output a spectral repair signal 35 that is fed into the inverse FFT module 29 that is arranged to transform the spectral repair signal 35 back to the time domain [0053 & FIG. 4]).
Regarding claim 6, MOSS discloses a signal generation method comprising:
extracting part of a frequency waveform as an extracted waveform, the frequency waveform being a waveform represented by a function of frequency (the input digital IF signal 20 is transformed to a frequency domain by the FFT module 27, and the acquired digital spectral signal 34 is processed in the threshold module 28 [0051 & FIG. 4]), the part of the frequency waveform corresponding to frequencies satisfying a preset extraction condition indicating that amplitude of the frequency waveform is high (the threshold module 28 is arranged to identify and retain sample points with signal components that exceed a certain level threshold, while all other sample points are set to zero [0052 & FIG. 4]); (the complex vector of the digital spectral signal 34 is used to identify the largest targets, i.e. the signal components that have an amplitude level that exceeds the certain level threshold [0058])
converting the extracted waveform into a time waveform which is a waveform represented by a function of time; and generating the time waveform as a signal (the threshold module 28 is arranged to output a spectral repair signal 35 that is fed into the inverse FFT module 29 that is arranged to transform the spectral repair signal 35 back to the time domain [0053 & FIG. 4]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOSS, in view of Martone et al. (US 2015/0201420 A1 “MARTONE”).
Regarding claim 2, MOSS discloses (Examiner’s note: What MOSS does not disclose is ) the signal generation apparatus as set forth in Claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MARTONE relates to cognitive radar and RF technologies. Specifically, MARTONE teaches that power estimates are determined for the frequency domain samples [0028]. The binary hypothesis test is a well-known detection technique used in statistical analysis for hypothesis testing. It is simply a threshold test. It is also widely-known in the cognitive radio community for detecting frequencies whose energy is over a predetermined threshold. The null hypothesis is energy below the threshold; the alternative hypothesis is energy above the threshold [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MOSS to include the teachings of MARTONE, because doing so would eliminate high risk frequencies from consideration, and isolate anchor points defined as a high energy region of interference for further analysis, as recognized by MARTONE. In addition, both of the prior art references, MOSS and MARTONE, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, RF signal processing.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOSS, in view of Kloper et al. (US 2008/0019464 A1 “KLOPER”).
Regarding claim 3, MOSS discloses the signal generation apparatus as set forth in Claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KLOPER relates to frequency spectrum signal analysis. Specifically, KLOPER teaches that for a detected FFT peak at frequency index k0, the bandwidth of the peak is defined as FPBW=Bandwidth (Hz)=(kh−k1+1)*fs/NFFT, where k1 and kh are the smallest and largest integers, respectively, satisfying (1) k1≦k0≦kh, and (2) P(k)≧P(k0)−BW_THRESH for any k1≦k≦kh, where fs is the ADC sampling rate in Hz, NFFT is the number of points/bins in the FFT, and P(k) denotes the power (in milliwatts) at FFT frequency bin k [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MOSS to include the teachings of KLOPER, because doing so would allow for more precise recognition of one or more peaks that might otherwise be detected as a single peak, and filter out peaks that are not desirable as part of the system design decision, as recognized by KLOPER. In addition, both of the prior art references, MOSS and KLOPER, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, signal processing in frequency domain.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOSS, in view of Hunter (US 2012/0139777 A1 “HUNTER”), and further in view of Dizaji et al. (US 2003/0174088 A1 “DIZAJI”).
Regarding claim 4, MOSS discloses the signal generation apparatus as set forth in Claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HUNTER teaches that the clutter boundaries may be determined at each of the range bins by stepping along Doppler bins from the mainlobe clutter peak estimate in opposite directions, locating the boundary at locations off of the mainlobe clutter peak estimate that meet a given criterion. One criterion involves two consecutive Doppler bins having signal strength (power) below a threshold value. The threshold may either be a predetermined threshold value, or an adaptive threshold based on the general noise level of the range-Doppler data [0022]. Furthermore, HUNTER teaches that one possible contour boundary condition is for a Doppler bin in question to have a power above a certain threshold, while the next two (or more) Doppler bins further away from the MLC ridge estimate have power (signal strength) below that the threshold [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MOSS to include the teachings of HUNTER, because doing so would allow for more data to be analyzed for presence of moving objects such as targets, and the use of the mainlobe clutter determination method requires little computing power, and may be performed by even simple integrated circuit chips, as recognized by HUNTER. In addition, both of the prior art references, MOSS and HUNTER, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, radio frequency signal processing and generation.
MOSS, as modified by HUNTER, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose that the extraction condition is that the frequencies satisfying the extraction condition are included in an extraction figure that is preset in the frequency waveform to include the peak frequency.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DIZAJI relates to an adaptive detection system and method for analyzing range-doppler-azimuth data for target detection. Specifically, DIZAJI teaches that a thresholding method based on a detection window 80 that employs an adaptive CFAR design is used for the detection module 14. Referring to FIG. 6, the detection window 80 is shown along with the cells of a portion of a range-doppler plot. The detection window 80 is designed such that the cells around a potential target in a range-doppler plot are divided into three regions comprising a target region 82, a guard region 84 and a main region 86. In the example shown in FIG. 6, the target region 82 is a square that is preferably 9 cells high in the range dimension and 5 cells wide in the doppler dimension. These dimensions are provided as an example. Accordingly, other dimensions may be used [0066]. Furthermore, the maximal amplitude of the target should preferably lie at the center of the target region 82 when the detection window 80 is centered on the target [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MOSS to include the teachings of DIZAJI, because doing so would obtain a good estimate of the background noise level, robust signal, and noise estimates, as recognized by DIZAJI. In addition, both of the prior art references, MOSS and DIZAJI, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, radio frequency signal processing and generation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chakravarthy et al. (US 2006/0067381 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of once frequency bands containing interference or other signals are identified, typically through estimation and threshold detection, those bands are “notched,” or removed, prior to creating the time-domain FMW using the appropriate inverse transform (e.g., inverse FFT). Data is then modulated with the FMW to generate the digitally encoded waveforms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 January 22, 2026