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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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 12 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 Objections
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the number being above a number threshold” which is objected to. It is suggested to be changed to “the number of channels being above a number threshold” to properly refer to the corresponding “a number of channels” previously recited.
Claim(s) 2, 10-11, and 19 are objected to because of the same reason(s) as claim 1, as detailed above. It is suggested to be changed to “the number of channels” to properly refer to the corresponding “a number of channels” previously recited.
Claim 3 recites “the method of claim 1 wherein: determining includes selecting channels” which is objected to. It is suggested to be changed to “the method of claim 1 wherein: the determining includes selecting channels” to properly refer to the corresponding “determining a number of channels” previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the same reason(s) as claim 3, as detailed above. It is suggested to be changed to “the method of claim 1 wherein: the determining includes selecting channels” to properly refer to the corresponding “determining a number of channels” previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the number threshold is 70%”. It is suggested to be changed to “the number threshold is [[70%]] seventy percent” for clarity.
Claim(s) 8 recites “the number threshold is 30%”. It is suggested to be changed to “the number threshold is [[30%]] thirty percent” for clarity.
Claim(s) 16-17 are objected to because of the same reason(s) as respective claim(s) 7-8, as detailed above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/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.
Claim 2 recites “further comprising classifying the target as a true target” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the feature “a true target” recited in claim 2 is the same or different from the feature “a true target” previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the instructions include classifying the target as a true target” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if the feature “a true target” recited in claim 2 is the same or different from the feature “a true target” previously recited in claim 10.
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 1-19 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 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) does/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, 10, and 19:
Claim 1:
A method for classifying a radar target detected by a radar having a plurality of channels, the method comprising: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target; and classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above a number threshold, and otherwise classifying the target as a false target.
Claim 10:
An apparatus for classifying a radar target detected by a radar having a plurality of channels, the apparatus comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions include: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target; and classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above a number threshold, and otherwise classifying the target as a false target.
Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions including: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting a target; and classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above a predetermined number threshold, and otherwise classifying the target as a false target.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 10 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and therefore, is 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. Independent claim(s) 10 and 19 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects 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. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target; and classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above a number threshold, and otherwise classifying the target as a false target”.
The focus of the claim (i.e., classifying the target) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, determining a number of channels and classifying the target in response to a number threshold are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a generically-recited analysis step is a mental process).
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Under the 2019 Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, and concepts merely using a computer as a tool, fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
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 recitation of the limitation(s) of “determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the limitation(s) of “memory” and “at least one processor” of claim 10 are recited at a high level of generality.
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
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 mental process of claim 1. That is, “determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target” fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation of the “determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target” is at a high level of generality and is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, the limitation(s) of “memory” and “at least one processor” of claim 10 are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim in this case specifies what information it is desirable to gather and analyze; but it does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim 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, 10, and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 11-18 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. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and recite further data gathering and the mathematical manipulation of the gathered data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering or data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claim 2: (and similarly claim 11)
The method of claim 1 further comprising classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above the number threshold for at least a predetermined duration.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 2 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 11 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is 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. Dependent claim(s) 11 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above).
These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 recitation of the limitation(s) of “classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above the number threshold for at least a predetermined duration” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. That is, “classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above the number threshold for at least a predetermined duration” 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. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim 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.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2 and 11 are ineligible.
Claim 3: (and similarly claim 12)
The method of claim 1 wherein: determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude above an amplitude threshold, and the amplitude is associated with the detected target.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 3 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 12 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is 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. Dependent claim(s) 12 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 3 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above).
These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 recitation of the limitation(s) of “wherein: determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude above an amplitude threshold, and the amplitude is associated with the detected target” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. That is, “wherein: determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude above an amplitude threshold, and the amplitude is associated with the detected target” 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. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim 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.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 3 and 12 are ineligible.
Claim 4: (and similarly claim 13)
The method of claim 1 wherein: determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude larger by a predetermined factor than an amplitude in another channel, and the amplitudes are associated with the detected target.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 4 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 13 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is 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. Dependent claim(s) 13 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 4 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above).
These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 recitation of the limitation(s) of “wherein: determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude larger by a predetermined factor than an amplitude in another channel, and the amplitudes are associated with the detected target” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. That is, “wherein: determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude larger by a predetermined factor than an amplitude in another channel, and the amplitudes are associated with the detected target” 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. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim 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.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 4 and 13 are ineligible.
Claim 7: (and similarly claim 16)
The method of claim 1 wherein the number threshold is 70% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 7 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 16 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is 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. Dependent claim(s) 16 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 7 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above).
These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 recitation of the limitation(s) of “wherein the number threshold is 70% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. That is, “wherein the number threshold is 70% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels” 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. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim 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.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 7 and 16 are ineligible.
Claim 8: (and similarly claim 17)
The method of claim 1 wherein the number threshold is 30% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 8 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 17 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is 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. Dependent claim(s) 17 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 8 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above).
These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 recitation of the limitation(s) of “wherein the number threshold is 30% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. That is, “wherein the number threshold is 30% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels” 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. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim 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.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 8 and 17 are ineligible.
Claim 9:
The method of claim 1 wherein the radar is a large aperture radar.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 9 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above).
These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 recitation of the limitation(s) of “wherein the radar is a large aperture radar” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation(s) represents no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. 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 and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. That is, “wherein the radar is a large aperture radar” fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation of the “wherein the radar is a large aperture radar” is at a high level of generality of a data source, and is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. 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. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim in this case does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim 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.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 9 is ineligible.
Claim 18:
A vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 10.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 18 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
The claim is directed to the apparatus of claim 10 which recites a mental process (see analysis above).
These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 recitation of the limitation(s) of “a vehicle” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) represents no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and generally a field of use. 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 and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. That is, “a vehicle” fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional, and is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim in this case does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim 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.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 18 is ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-19 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, 3, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2019/0025405 A1 “LIU”).
Regarding claim 1, LIU discloses (Examiner’s note: What LIU does not disclose is ) a method for classifying a radar target detected by a radar having a plurality of channels (sample data for returns received at each of a quantity K channels, i.e., K antenna elements, are received for processing by processing circuitry [0045 & FIG. 7]), the method comprising: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target (each channel includes N samples. A Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is performed on the N samples for each of the K channels. The result of the FFT is generation of a number of Doppler bins, which is K*N total bins. As indicated at 254, a magnitude of each complex value in the Doppler bins is then computed. At 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [0045 & FIG. 7]); and classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above a number threshold (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [0045 & FIG. 7]), Examiner’s note: “A channel is considered to be involved in detecting the target if the signal amplitude is sufficiently large and contributes to the overall amplitude associated with the particular target” [para. 0043]. Examiner’s note: LIU does not explicitly disclose otherwise classifying the target as a false target; however, claim 1 recites a method for classifying a radar target and limitation “classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above a number threshold, and otherwise classifying the target as a false target” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “classifying the target as a true target”) if a first condition (i.e. “the number being above a number threshold”) happens; and step B (i.e. “classifying the target as a false target”) if a second condition (i.e. “otherwise”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 3, LIU discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: determining includes selecting channels having an amplitude above an amplitude threshold, and the amplitude is associated with the detected target (at 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [0045 & FIG. 7], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, LIU discloses a vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 10 (system 10A includes one or more radar modules 12A, which process radar transmit and receive signals which are compatible with the radar detection and monitoring system 10A in the host automobile [LIU 0024]).
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 LIU, in view of Samukawa et al. (US 2005/0128133 A1 “SAMUKAWA”).
Regarding claim 2, LIU discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above the number threshold (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [0045 & FIG. 7], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1)
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAMUKAWA teaches that when the detection time in pending status becomes at least 0.4 second or above (the target is detected for four successive cycles at a rate of 0.1 second per cycle, for example), the target is in sensed status [0075].
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 LIU to include the teachings of SAMUKAWA, because doing so would enable the vehicle system to judge with accuracy a state in which the vehicle of interest is approaching the vehicle ahead [0076], as recognized by SAMUKAWA. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and SAMUKAWA, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection in a radar system.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of Hill et al. (US 3,875,569 A “HILL”).
Regarding claim 4, LIU discloses the method of claim 1
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HILL teaches that in FIG. 3a the guard channel output aG is shown supplied directly to comparator 44a and the main channel output aM is shown attenuated by a factor K in an attenuator 41b whose output is aM/K. Thus, the output of comparator 44a, i.e., VR, is true only if aM/K > aG (Examiner’s note: which is also equivalent to aM > aGK). The invention is described in conjunction with the arrangement shown in FIG. 3 in which the main-to-guard channel output ratio is derived and VR is true only when this ratio defined as R exceeds K [col. 4, lines 28-45]. A mainlobe target is assumed to be detected when detection is present in both channels and VR is true [col. 4, lines 56-60].
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 LIU to include the teachings of HILL, because doing so would improve probability of detection in the antenna mainlobe with increased SNR [col. 2, lines 2-3], as recognized by HILL. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and HILL, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, target detection in radar system.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of Pontisakos et al. (US 2021/0101588 A1 “PONTISAKOS”).
Regarding claim 5, LIU discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the radar is a Doppler radar (any waveform which provides a Doppler measurement can be used. These waveforms can include, but are not limited to pulsed Doppler, FMCW, step FM or other waveforms [0038]), Examiner’s note: The Examiner further noted that Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar may be a Doppler radar and the target’s Doppler shift may correspond to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s, or less than 0.5 m/s, or less than 0.25 m/s. Such a range would correspond to a static target, i.e. either an internal ghost target due to multibounce reflections inside a vehicle only or to an external ghost target due to reflections at guard rails or concrete walls which are outside of the regular field of view of the radar but which have a small or vanishing Doppler shift” [para. 0025].
LIU further discloses that the detections being associated with a detected azimuth and detected relative velocity of each ground-stationary clutter object [claim 1]; and for example, a clutter object is detected at a Doppler of 5 m/s, while the host vehicle is moving at a speed of 10 m/s [0048]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose that a Doppler shift of the radar target corresponds to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PONTISAKOS teaches that the target 200 can have a classification of “stationary” (i.e., a target 200 that has a speed below a speed threshold). The speed threshold can be, e.g., 1 m/s. The speed threshold can change based on a current classification of the target 200 to account for small variations of the target 200 speed about the current speed threshold, e.g., 0.1 m/s. For example, if the target 200 has no current classification, the computer 105 can assign the classification of “stationary” when the speed of the target 200 is below a first threshold, e.g., 0.5 m/s. Thus, rather than rapidly assigning different classifications when the speed of the target 200 varies slightly about the speed threshold, the computer 105 can adjust the speed threshold to reduce assignments of classifications from small variations in target 200 speed [0058].
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 LIU to include the teachings of PONTISAKOS, because adjustment of speed threshold would dynamically assign classifications of target, thereby improve host vehicle’s responsiveness [0058], as recognized by PONTISAKOS. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and PONTISAKOS, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection in radar automotive system.
Regarding claim 6, LIU discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the radar is a Doppler radar (any waveform which provides a Doppler measurement can be used. These waveforms can include, but are not limited to pulsed Doppler, FMCW, step FM or other waveforms [0038]), Examiner’s note: The Examiner further noted that Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar may be a Doppler radar and the target’s Doppler shift may correspond to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s, or less than 0.5 m/s, or less than 0.25 m/s. Such a range would correspond to a static target, i.e. either an internal ghost target due to multibounce reflections inside a vehicle only or to an external ghost target due to reflections at guard rails or concrete walls which are outside of the regular field of view of the radar but which have a small or vanishing Doppler shift” [para. 0025].
LIU further discloses that the detections being associated with a detected azimuth and detected relative velocity of each ground-stationary clutter object [claim 1]; and for example, a clutter object is detected at a Doppler of 5 m/s, while the host vehicle is moving at a speed of 10 m/s [0048]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose that a Doppler shift of the radar target corresponds to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PONTISAKOS teaches that the target 200 can have a classification of “stationary” (i.e., a target 200 that has a speed below a speed threshold). The speed threshold can change based on a current classification of the target 200 to account for small variations of the target 200 speed about the current speed threshold, e.g., 0.1 m/s. Thus, rather than rapidly assigning different classifications when the speed of the target 200 varies slightly about the speed threshold, the computer 105 can adjust the speed threshold to reduce assignments of classifications from small variations in target 200 speed [0058].
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 LIU to include the teachings of PONTISAKOS, because adjustment of speed threshold would dynamically assign classifications of target, thereby improve host vehicle’s responsiveness [0058], as recognized by PONTISAKOS.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10, 12, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of Zhang et al. ("Moving target parameter estimation and SFN ghost rejection in multistatic passive radar," 2013 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarCon13), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2013, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ RADAR.2013.6586086. “ZHANG”).
Regarding claim 7, LIU discloses the method of claim 1
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [pg. 4, lines 16-24]. The Examiner further noted that although ZHANG does not explicitly teach that the number threshold is 70% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels, ZHANG teaches still that three or more channels are available, and only one or two channels are recognized. It would be obvious that, for example, ten channels in total are available and only seven channels are recognized.
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 LIU to include the teachings of ZHANG, because doing so would distinguish ghost targets from true targets [pg. 1], thereby improving system detection accuracy, as recognized by ZHANG. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and ZHANG, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection in a radar system.
Regarding claim 8, LIU discloses the method of claim 1
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [pg. 4, lines 16-24]. The Examiner further noted that although ZHANG does not explicitly teach that the number threshold is 30% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels, ZHANG teaches still that three or more channels are available, and only one or two channels are recognized. It would be obvious that, for example, ten channels in total are available and only three channels are recognized.
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 LIU to include the teachings of ZHANG, because doing so would distinguish ghost targets from true targets [pg. 1], thereby improving system detection accuracy, as recognized by ZHANG.
Regarding claim 10, LIU discloses an apparatus for classifying a radar target detected by a radar having a plurality of channels (sample data for returns received at each of a quantity K channels, i.e., K antenna elements, are received for processing by processing circuitry [0045 & FIG. 7]), the apparatus comprising: memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (a processor 36B, which can include such circuitry as a digital signal processor (DSP), associated memory [0027]), wherein the instructions include: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting the target (each channel includes N samples. Frequency transformation processing, such as a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), is performed on the N samples for each of the K channels. The result of the FFT is generation of a number of Doppler bins, which is K*N total bins. As indicated at 254, a magnitude of each complex value in the Doppler bins is then computed. At 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [0045 & FIG. 7]); and classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above a number threshold (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [0045 & FIG. 7]),
It is further noted that LIU discloses that if the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated [0045]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose otherwise classifying the target as a false target.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [pg. 4, lines 16-24].
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 LIU to include the teachings of ZHANG, because doing so would distinguish ghost targets from true targets [pg. 1], thereby improving system detection accuracy, as recognized by ZHANG.
Regarding claim 12, LIU/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein: the instructions include selecting channels having an amplitude above an amplitude threshold, and the amplitude is associated with the detected target (at 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [LIU 0045 & FIG. 7], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 16, LIU/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein the number threshold is 70% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels (because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [ZHANG pg. 4, lines 16-24], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10). The Examiner further noted that although ZHANG does not explicitly teach that the number threshold is 70% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels, ZHANG teaches still that three or more channels are available, and only one or two channels are recognized. It would be obvious that, for example, ten channels in total are available and only seven channels are recognized.
Regarding claim 17, LIU/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein the number threshold is 30% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels (because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [ZHANG pg. 4, lines 16-24], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10). The Examiner further noted that although ZHANG does not explicitly teach that the number threshold is 30% of the number of channels in the plurality of channels, ZHANG teaches still that three or more channels are available, and only one or two channels are recognized. It would be obvious that, for example, ten channels in total are available and only three channels are recognized.
Regarding claim 19, LIU discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (a processor 36B, which can include such circuitry as a digital signal processor (DSP), associated memory [0027]) including: determining a number of channels being involved in detecting a target (each channel includes N samples. Frequency transformation processing, such as a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), is performed on the N samples for each of the K channels. The result of the FFT is generation of a number of Doppler bins, which is K*N total bins. As indicated at 254, a magnitude of each complex value in the Doppler bins is then computed. At 256, each magnitude is compared to a threshold, indicated as Threshold_1 in FIG. 7. Next, as shown at 258, the number of channels having a magnitude exceeding Threshold_1 is determined. For example, in the case illustrated at 256, this number is three [0045 & FIG. 7]); and classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above a predetermined number threshold (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [0045 & FIG. 7]),
It is further noted that LIU discloses that if the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated [0045]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose otherwise classifying the target as a false target.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that because the position of a ghost target is usually far separated from the true target position, the received signals do not yield meaningful Doppler parameter estimation because the range walking due to the radar receiver platform is not compensated. In addition, when three or more transmitters are available, motion parameter estimation allows ghost rejection from the following perspectives: (a) Determine as a ghost when signals from only one or two transmitters are recognized [pg. 4, lines 16-24].
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 LIU to include the teachings of ZHANG, because doing so would distinguish ghost targets from true targets [pg. 1], thereby improving system detection accuracy, as recognized by ZHANG.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of Nink et al. (US 2010/0052986 A1 “NINK”).
Regarding claim 9, LIU discloses the method of claim 1 Examiner’s note: The Examiner noted that claim 9 recites a relative term “large”, and that the Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar 1 shown in the examples of FIGS. 1 and 2 is a large aperture radar, i.e. the antennas are spaced apart 10 wavelengths or more” [para. 0041].
In a same or similar field of endeavor, NINK teaches that the term antenna aperture refers to a single antenna element (such as a large reflector antennas) [0026]. Multiple antennas at locations that are widely separated (for example, where apertures are separated by hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of wavelengths) [0027].
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 LIU to include the teachings of NINK, because doing so would maximize a signal to noise ratio, thereby improving reliability of the system [0010], as recognized by NINK. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIU and NINK, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, target detection using radar.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of ZHANG, and further in view of SAMUKAWA.
Regarding claim 11, LIU/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein the instructions include classifying the target as a true target in response to the number being above the number threshold (that number of channels is compared to a second threshold, referred to herein as Threshold_2. If the number of channels exceeds Threshold_2, then it is concluded that a detection is indicated. This process is performed for each channel and Doppler bin to identify detections to generate a detection list [LIU 0045 & FIG. 7], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10)
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAMUKAWA teaches that when the detection time in pending status becomes at least 0.4 second or above (the target is detected for four successive cycles at a rate of 0.1 second per cycle, for example), the target is in sensed status [0075].
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 LIU to include the teachings of SAMUKAWA, because doing so would enable the vehicle system to judge with accuracy a state in which the vehicle of interest is approaching the vehicle ahead [0076], as recognized by SAMUKAWA.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of ZHANG, and further in view of HILL.
Regarding claim 13, LIU/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HILL teaches that in FIG. 3a the guard channel output aG is shown supplied directly to comparator 44a and the main channel output aM is shown attenuated by a factor K in an attenuator 41b whose output is aM/K. Thus, the output of comparator 44a, i.e., VR, is true only if aM/K > aG (Examiner’s note: which is also equivalent to aM > aGK). The invention is described in conjunction with the arrangement shown in FIG. 3 in which the main-to-guard channel output ratio is derived and VR is true only when this ratio defined as R exceeds K [col. 4, lines 28-45]. A mainlobe target is assumed to be detected when detection is present in both channels and VR is true [col. 4, lines 56-60].
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 LIU to include the teachings of HILL, because doing so would improve probability of detection in the antenna mainlobe with increased SNR [col. 2, lines 2-3], as recognized by HILL.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, in view of ZHANG, and further in view of PONTISAKOS.
Regarding claim 14, LIU/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein: the radar is a Doppler radar (any waveform which provides a Doppler measurement can be used. These waveforms can include, but are not limited to pulsed Doppler, FMCW, step FM or other waveforms [LIU 0038]), Examiner’s note: The Examiner further noted that Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar may be a Doppler radar and the target’s Doppler shift may correspond to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s, or less than 0.5 m/s, or less than 0.25 m/s. Such a range would correspond to a static target, i.e. either an internal ghost target due to multibounce reflections inside a vehicle only or to an external ghost target due to reflections at guard rails or concrete walls which are outside of the regular field of view of the radar but which have a small or vanishing Doppler shift” [para. 0025].
LIU further discloses that the detections being associated with a detected azimuth and detected relative velocity of each ground-stationary clutter object [claim 1]; and for example, a clutter object is detected at a Doppler of 5 m/s, while the host vehicle is moving at a speed of 10 m/s [0048]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose that a Doppler shift of the radar target corresponds to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PONTISAKOS teaches that the target 200 can have a classification of “stationary” (i.e., a target 200 that has a speed below a speed threshold). The speed threshold can be, e.g., 1 m/s. The speed threshold can change based on a current classification of the target 200 to account for small variations of the target 200 speed about the current speed threshold, e.g., 0.1 m/s. For example, if the target 200 has no current classification, the computer 105 can assign the classification of “stationary” when the speed of the target 200 is below a first threshold, e.g., 0.5 m/s. Thus, rather than rapidly assigning different classifications when the speed of the target 200 varies slightly about the speed threshold, the computer 105 can adjust the speed threshold to reduce assignments of classifications from small variations in target 200 speed [0058].
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 LIU to include the teachings of PONTISAKOS, because adjustment of speed threshold would dynamically assign classifications of target, thereby improve host vehicle’s responsiveness [0058], as recognized by PONTISAKOS.
Regarding claim 15, LIU/ ZHANG discloses the apparatus of claim 10 wherein: the radar is a Doppler radar (any waveform which provides a Doppler measurement can be used. These waveforms can include, but are not limited to pulsed Doppler, FMCW, step FM or other waveforms [LIU 0038]), Examiner’s note: The Examiner further noted that Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “The radar may be a Doppler radar and the target’s Doppler shift may correspond to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s, or less than 0.5 m/s, or less than 0.25 m/s. Such a range would correspond to a static target, i.e. either an internal ghost target due to multibounce reflections inside a vehicle only or to an external ghost target due to reflections at guard rails or concrete walls which are outside of the regular field of view of the radar but which have a small or vanishing Doppler shift” [para. 0025].
LIU further discloses that the detections being associated with a detected azimuth and detected relative velocity of each ground-stationary clutter object [claim 1]; and for example, a clutter object is detected at a Doppler of 5 m/s, while the host vehicle is moving at a speed of 10 m/s [0048]. However, LIU does not explicitly disclose that a Doppler shift of the radar target corresponds to a speed relative to the radar of less than 1 m/s.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PONTISAKOS teaches that the target 200 can have a classification of “stationary” (i.e., a target 200 that has a speed below a speed threshold). The speed threshold can be, e.g., 1 m/s. The speed threshold can change based on a current classification of the target 200 to account for small variations of the target 200 speed about the current speed threshold, e.g., 0.1 m/s. For example, if the target 200 has no current classification, the computer 105 can assign the classification of “stationary” when the speed of the target 200 is below a first threshold, e.g., 0.5 m/s. Thus, rather than rapidly assigning different classifications when the speed of the target 200 varies slightly about the speed threshold, the computer 105 can adjust the speed threshold to reduce assignments of classifications from small variations in target 200 speed [0058].
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 LIU to include the teachings of PONTISAKOS, because adjustment of speed threshold would dynamically assign classifications of target, thereby improve host vehicle’s responsiveness [0058], as recognized by PONTISAKOS.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lesi et al. (US 2021/0318414 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of determining a potential ghost target from the received velocities and confirming the potential ghost target based on estimated ranges and perturbations of the vehicle speed.
Bialer at al. (US 2018/0128912 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of radars with wide array aperture and widely spaced elements, such as spacing larger than half a wavelength is utilized.
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 December 27, 2025