DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 11/17/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In figure 1, Ref. No. 102 should have an arrow pointing to the general group of antennas instead of a line directly to one antenna at the top of the illustration so that 102 is understood to represent all the antenna, not a particular one. See Ref. Nos. 106 as an example using the antenna responses.
In figure 1, Ref. No. 104 should have an arrow pointing to the general group of analog front ends (AFEs) instead of a line directly to one of the AFEs at the bottom of the illustration so that 104 is understood to represent all of the AFE, not a particular one. See Ref. Nos. 106 as an example using the antenna responses.
In figure 3, the Ref. Nos. for the predictions should potentially be appended with letters to indicate that the predictions for each decision tree are different, i.e. 308a, 308b, 308c. Be sure to amend the detailed description in accordance with this change.
In figure 3, Ref. No. 310 is defined as the combination function but the illustration labels the box as “averaging function.” It is understood that in this embodiment the combination function is an averaging function, however the illustration should label the box combination function or Ref. No. 310 should be defined as only the averaging function for clarity. E.g. in paragraph [0036], line 23, “performs an averaging function 310,” removing the defining of 310 as the combination function elsewhere in the paragraph.
In figure 4, Ref. No. 402 should potentially be added for each sensor of 1, 2, and 4 for clarity of illustration
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The sections “Technical Field” and “Background” should be combined into a single section titled “Background of the Invention” keeping the same sub-sections and renaming the “Background” section as “Description of the Related Art”
In paragraph [0026], line 10, “that generate at least phase measurements…” should read “that generate at least n phase measurements…”
In paragraph [0036], lines 5-6, “except for the leaf nodes 306 (the bottom nodes 306 in the decision tree 304)” should read “except for the leaf nodes of nodes 306 (the bottom layer of nodes 306 in the decision trees 304)” so as to more clearly indicate that you aren’t trying to reassign Ref. No. 306 to leaf nodes, that the leaf nodes are the bottom “layer” as referred to later on in the paragraph, and that the leaf nodes are in all the decision trees 304 not just one decision tree 304
In paragraph [0044], lines 5 and 8, the phase response charts should not be referenced using range 500-506 as that implies the existence of charts 501, 503, and 505. Instead refer to the group of charts using “500, 502, 504, and 506”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed towards a machine, Claims 8-14 are directed towards a method, and Claims 15-20 are directed towards an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed towards one of the 4 statutory categories; process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed towards a judicial exception.
process the antenna measurements using multiple decision trees… the decision trees configured to generate multiple initial predictions of an angle of arrival associated with the one or more incoming signals (Mental Process: One could process antenna measurements using decision trees to generate multiple initial angles of arrival predictions associated with incoming signals, mentally or using pen and paper. Processing merely comprises observation and understanding of something and someone can mentally follow a decision tree down until they reach a result or output.)
combine the initial predictions in order to generate a final prediction of the angle of arrival associated with the one or more incoming signals (Mental Process: One could combine the initial predication to generate a final predication for the angle of arrival of incoming signals, mentally or using pen and paper)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional Elements:
An apparatus comprising: multiple antennas each configured to receive one or more incoming signals… (Limiting the field of use to use of antennas. Linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h))
At least one processing device configured to… (Adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. A processor is a generic computer component. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
receive antenna measurements associated with the one or more incoming signals, the antenna measurements comprising phase measurements associated with the one or more incoming signals (Amounts to necessary data gathering. Insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g))
…of a random forest regressor… (A random forest regressor is a high-level machine learning model; merely using a computer to do high-level machine learning. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Re-evaluation of Insignificant Extra Solution Activities:
receive antenna measurements associated with the one or more incoming signals, the antenna measurements comprising phase measurements associated with the one or more incoming signals (“Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim), as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)
Additional Elements:
An apparatus comprising: multiple antennas each configured to receive one or more incoming signals… (Limiting the field of use to use of antennas. Linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h))
At least one processing device configured to… (Adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. A processor is a generic computer component. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
…of a random forest regressor… (A random forest regressor is a high-level machine learning model; merely using a computer to do high-level machine learning. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
With respect to claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed towards a judicial exception, including those inherited from claim 1 via dependency.
Implement one or more mappings between different antenna measurements and different angles of arrival (Mental Process: One could map different antenna measurements to different angles of arrival, mentally or using pen and paper)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of claim 1… (See above)
Wherein the random forest regressor is configured to… (A random forest regressor is a high-level machine learning model; merely using a computer to do high-level machine learning. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of claim 1… (See above)
Wherein the random forest regressor is configured to… (A random forest regressor is a high-level machine learning model; merely using a computer to do high-level machine learning. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
With respect to claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed towards a judicial exception, including those inherited from claim 1 via dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
wherein at least some of the antennas are separated from one another by one or more distances such that the one or more incoming signals received at one or more of the antennas experience phase wrapping relative to the one or more incoming signals received at one or more others of the antennas (Limiting the field of use to use of antennas that experience phase wrapping. Linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
wherein at least some of the antennas are separated from one another by one or more distances such that the one or more incoming signals received at one or more of the antennas experience phase wrapping relative to the one or more incoming signals received at one or more others of the antennas (Limiting the field of use to use of antennas that experience phase wrapping. Linking the use of a judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h))
With respect to claim 4:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed towards a judicial exception, including those inherited from claim 1 via dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
wherein the phase measurements are based on antenna responses of the multiple antennas, each of the antennas having a different antenna response than one or more others of the antennas (Describes the information that the abstract idea operates on rather than an additional element to integrate the exception into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.05(e), which discusses other meaningful limitations)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
wherein the phase measurements are based on antenna responses of the multiple antennas, each of the antennas having a different antenna response than one or more others of the antennas (Describes the information that the abstract idea operates on rather than an additional element to integrate the exception into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.05(e), which discusses other meaningful limitations)
With respect to claim 5:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed towards a judicial exception, including those inherited from claim 1 via dependency.
Combine the initial predictions in order to generate the final prediction of the angle of arrival…average the initial predictions (Mental Process and Mathematical Concept: One could combine the initial predictions to generate a final prediction using the mathematical concept of averaging the initial predictions, mentally or using pen and paper)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
…the at least one processing device is configured to… (Adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. A processor is a generic computer component. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
…the at least one processing device is configured to… (Adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. A processor is a generic computer component. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
With respect to claim 6:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed towards a judicial exception, including those inherited from claim 1 via dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
wherein the antennas have arbitrary positions on a platform (Describes the formation of the apparatus on which the judicial exceptions are limited to a field of use rather than an additional element to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.05(e), which discusses other meaningful limitations)
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
wherein the antennas have arbitrary positions on a platform (Describes the formation of the apparatus on which the judicial exceptions are limited to a field of use rather than an additional element to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.05(e), which discusses other meaningful limitations)
With respect to claim 7:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed towards a judicial exception, including those inherited from claim 1 via dependency.
…repeatedly identify final predictions of the angle of arrival associated with the one or more incoming signals in real-time (Mental Process: One could repeatedly identify final predictions of the angle of arrival associated with the incoming signals in real-time, mentally or using pen and paper)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception as a whole is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
…wherein the at least one processing device is configured to… (Adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. A processor is a generic computer component. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional Elements:
The apparatus of Claim 1… (See above)
…wherein the at least one processing device is configured to… (Adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. A processor is a generic computer component. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f))
With respect to claims 8-14:
See the rejections for claims 1-7 above. Note that the only difference between claims 8-14 and claims 1-7 is that claims 8-14 are directed towards the method whereas claims 1-7 are directed towards the apparatus that conducts the method, i.e. covering the method.
With respect to claims 15-20:
See the rejections for claims 1-7 above. Note that the only difference between claims 15-20 and claims 1-7 is that claims 15-20 are directed towards the article of manufacture that contains instructions for the method whereas claims 1-7 are directed towards the apparatus that conducts the method, i.e. covering the instructions for the method. Further, note that the additional element of a “non-transitory machine-readable medium containing instructions” amounts to a generic computer component. (Non-transitory computer-readable media are generic computer components that all store information including potentially, instructions. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, note that the difference in wording between claim 1 and claim 15 does not constitute a difference in the limitations of the claims; they both still recite the same subject matter in a different order/manner, i.e. ‘obtaining’ (claim 15) and ‘receiving’ (claim 1) are synonyms and the provide measurements step to a random forest regressor (claim 15) is a given in processing the measurements using a random forest regressor (claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 are being unpatentable over Merk et. al. (US 20220308151 A1) in view of Meltzer (Meltzer, R. (2023, August 31). What is Random Forest? [Beginner’s guide + examples]. CareerFoundry.com)
Regarding claim 1, Merk et. al. teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising:
multiple antennas… (Fig. 2, Ref. No. 5; Paragraph [0017], “The antenna array may also be denoted as a multi antenna. For example, the antenna array may comprise two or more antenna elements.”)
…each configured to receive one or more incoming signals; (Paragraph [0086], “In a first step 101, measurement data are obtained based on the received RF measurement signals from an antenna array.” Note that the received incoming one or more signals are understood to be the received RF measurement signals. ) and
at least one processing device configured to… (Paragraph [0073, “a device comprises a processing unit, wherein the processing unit is configured to…”)
receive antenna measurements associated with the one or more incoming signals, (Paragraph [0073], “obtain measurement data based on received RF measurement signals from an antenna array.” Note that measurement data is understood to be the same as antenna measurements and received RF measurement signals were understood to be the incoming signals, as above)
the antenna measurements comprising phase measurements associated with the one or more incoming signals; (Paragraph [0040], “According to a further embodiment the measurement data comprises in-phase and quadrature, IQ, data.” Note that with no explicit definition of phase measurements, they are understood to include any types of data that represent a wave or signals phase, including I/Q data.)
process the antenna measurements… (Paragraph [0073], “The processing unit is further configured to determine power spectra, comprising determining at least one power spectrum for each of the multiple frequency channels by using the measurement data. The processing unit comprises a machine learning algorithm, which is able to determine an AoA based on power spectra of multiple frequency channels.” Note that the antenna measurements, known as measurement data as above, are still being processed by the machine learning model, just after they are converted into power spectra.)
…using multiple decision trees of a random forest… (Paragraph [0045], “Additionally or alternatively the machine learning algorithm comprises a random forest algorithm.” Paragraph [0095], “The random forest algorithm, for example, comprises eleven trees and a maximum depth of five.” Note that, as an example, the eleven trees comprise ‘multiple’ decision trees. Note that in further citations, machine learning algorithm is now understood to comprise a random forest algorithm)
…the decision trees configured to generate multiple initial predictions of an angle of arrival associated with the one or more incoming signals; (Paragraph [0073], “a machine learning algorithm, which is able to determine an AoA based on power spectra of multiple frequency channels.” As noted above, the machine learning model is understood to comprise a random forest algorithm. An inherent aspect of random forest algorithms is to have decision trees that each produce a result or prediction which contributes to the prediction output by the model. Further, as above, the power spectra are understood to be alternate representations of the measurement data and are therefore used by the decision trees of the random forest machine learning algorithm to generate multiple initial predictions on the AoA associated with the incoming RF measurement signals) and
combine the initial predictions in order to generate a final prediction of the angle
of arrival associated with the one or more incoming signals (Paragraph [0073], “a machine learning algorithm, which is able to determine an AoA based on power spectra of multiple frequency channels.” As noted above, the machine learning model is understood to comprise a random forest algorithm. A random forest algorithm inherently combines the predictions of its decision trees in some manner in order to obtain a final prediction, in this case, of the angle of arrival for the incoming RF measurement signals)
Merk et. al. does not distinctly disclose that the random forest algorithm used is a random forest regressor.
However, Meltzer teaches the use of regression in random forest algorithms (What is Random Forest, “Random Forest is a powerful and versatile supervised machine learning algorithm that grows and combines multiple decision trees to create a “forest.” It can be used for both classification and regression problems,” What are regression and classification in machine learning, “In regression analysis, the dependent attribute is numerical instead. Regression is used when the output variable is a real or continuous value such as salary, age, or weight”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus in Merk et. al. (a device configured to use a random forest algorithm and signal phase measurements to determine signal AoAs) with the techniques of using regression in a random forest algorithm as explained in Meltzer in order to configure the model for the determining of continuous numerical values such as angles of arrival. Thereby, focusing the model on regression tasks instead of both classification and regression tasks and specializing the model for the task at hand, determining an angle of arrival (numerical value). (Meltzer, What are regression and classification in machine learning, “Regression is used when the output variable is a real or continuous value.” Note that further citations, the machine learning algorithm in Merk is now understood to comprise a random forest regression algorithm)
Regarding claim 2, Merk et. al. as modified by Meltzer teaches all of the limitations of the apparatus in claim 1 as cited above and Merk further teaches the limitation:
wherein the random forest regressor is configured to… (Paragraph [0014], “determining the AoA of the received RF measurement signals by using the machine learning algorithm.” Note that as above, the machine learning algorithm is now understood to comprise a random forest regressor algorithm)
…implement one or more mappings… (Given no explicit definition, given the specification, mappings can include but are not limited to azimuth and elevation angles given for the AoAs. See Paragraph [0015], “the AoA may be representative of a vector and the AoA may comprise an azimuth AoA and/or an elevation AoA”)
…between different antenna measurements and different angles of arrival (Paragraph [0014], “obtaining measurement data based on the received RF measurement signals… determining power spectra… using the measurement data… determining the AoA of the received RF measurement signals by using the machine learning algorithm and the determined power spectra.” Note that the machine learning model uses the antenna measurements received by each signal, converted into power spectra, to determine the angle of arrival for the signal, i.e. mapping the antenna measurements to the determined AoA for each signal. Note that signals is plural, meaning this process is done for different signals to map them to different AoA)
Regarding claim 5, Merk et. al. as modified by Meltzer teaches all of the limitations of the apparatus in claim 1 as cited above and Meltzer further teaches the limitation:
wherein, to combine the initial predictions in order to generate the final prediction of the angle of arrival, the at least one processing device is configured to average the initial predictions (How does the Random Forest algorithm work, “When using Random Forest for regression, the forest picks the average of the outputs of all trees.” As noted in the citations above, the processing unit comprises the machine learning algorithm which is a random forest regression algorithm that makes initial predictions using decision trees and combines them, using averaging, to determine a final prediction on the angle of arrival i.e. the processing unit averages the initial predictions of the decision trees via the random forest regression model that is has)
See the motivation to use regression in random forest algorithms in the rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Merk et. al. as modified by Meltzer teaches all of the limitations of the apparatus in claim 1 as cited above and Merk further teaches the limitation:
wherein the antennas have arbitrary positions on a platform (Paragraph [0017], “The antenna array may be of an arbitrary form and/or shape.” Note that as the antennas array may be of arbitrary form, the antennas, being part of the antenna array, may have arbitrary positions. Further, note that the platform is understood to be the device the antenna arrays are on)
Regarding claim 8, see the rejection for claim 1 above. Note that the only difference between claim 8 and claim 1 is that claim 8 is directed towards the method (Merk, Abstract, “The present disclosure relates to a method (100) for determining an angle of arrival, AoA, of received radio frequency, RF, measurement signals.”) whereas claim 1 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection for claim 2 above. Note that the only difference between claim 9 and claim 2 is that claim 9 is directed towards the method whereas claim 2 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 8 above which address this difference.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection for claim 5 above. Note that the difference between claim 12 and claim 5 is that claim 12 is directed towards the method whereas claim 5 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 8 above which address this difference.
Further, note that the difference in wording between claim 12 and claim 5 does not constitute a difference in the limitations of the claims; they both still recite the same subject matter in a different order/manner, i.e. ‘combining’ (claim 12) and ‘to combine…the processor…’ (claim 5) are the same limitation, the combining is just done by the processor in the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection for claim 6 above. Note that the only difference between claim 13 and claim 6 is that claim 13 is directed towards the method whereas claim 6 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 8 above which address this difference.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection for claim 1 above. Note that the difference between claim 15 and claim 1 is that claim 15 is directed towards an article of manufacture holding instructions for the method (Merk, Paragraph [0076], “a computer program product comprises instructions which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to carry out the method” and Paragraph [0077], “a non-volatile storage medium comprises a computer program product”) whereas claim 1 is directed towards the method.
Further, note that the difference in wording between claim 1 and claim 15 does not constitute a difference in the limitations of the claims; they both still recite the same subject matter in a different order/manner, i.e. ‘obtaining’ (claim 15) and ‘receiving’ (claim 1) are synonyms and the provide measurements step to a random forest regressor (claim 15) is a given in processing the measurements using a random forest regressor (claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection for claim 2 above. Note that the only difference between claim 16 and claim 2 is that claim 16 is directed towards the article of manufacture holding instructions for the method whereas claim 2 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 15 above which address this difference.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection for claim 5 above. Note that the difference between claim 19 and claim 5 is that claim 19 is directed towards the article of manufacture holding instructions for the method whereas claim 5 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 15 above which address this difference.
Further, note that the difference in wording between claim 19 and claim 5 does not constitute a difference in the limitations of the claims; they both still recite the same subject matter in a different order/manner, i.e. the inclusion of the instruction steps causing the processor to do certain tasks is addressed in the rejection for claim 15.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 are being unpatentable over Merk et. al. (US 20220308151 A1) in view of Meltzer (Meltzer, R. (2023, August 31). What is Random Forest? [Beginner’s guide + examples]. CareerFoundry.com), further in view of Ryzhkov (RU2602669 C1).
Regarding claim 3, Merk et. al. as modified by Meltzer teaches all of the limitations of the apparatus in claim 1 as cited above, but does not distinctly disclose the limitation:
wherein at least some of the antennas are separated from one another by one or more distances such that the one or more incoming signals received at one or more of the antennas experience phase wrapping relative to the one or more incoming signals received at one or more others of the antennas
However, Ryzhkov teaches that limitation:
wherein at least some of the antennas are separated from one another by one or more distances… (Paragraph 8, “The first auxiliary antenna 1 is offset relative to the main antenna 8 by a distance d.” Note that this demonstrates that the auxiliary antenna and main antenna are separated from one another by distance d)
such that the one or more incoming signals received at one or more of the antennas… (Paragraph 8, “…interference signal received by this antenna relative to the interference signal, received by the main antenna 8.” Note that the interference signal received at both the auxiliary and main antenna constitutes an incoming signal)
…experience phase wrapping relative to the one or more incoming signals received at one or more others of the antennas (Paragraph 8, “which leads to a phase shift of the interference signal received by this antenna relative to the interference signal, received by the main antenna 8, by the value of φ .sub.П = 2π (d / λ) sinα .sub.П , where α .sub.П is the direction of arrival of the interfering signal.” Note that given the specification, phase wrapping occurs when antennas are spaced far enough apart that a signal received at one antenna is more than 2π out-of-phase with respect to the same signal received at another antenna, i.e. the phase shift is greater than 2π. Using the equation in the citation above, if the distance between the antennas, d, is larger than the wavelength, λ, of the incoming signal and the sine of the direction of arrival does not reduce (d/ λ) below a value of 1, then the phase shift of the signal from one antenna to the other is greater than 2π, thereby causing the auxiliary antenna and main antenna to experience phase wrapping relative to the interference signal they both receive. Given that there is no limit on the distance between the antennas in this reference, an embodiment of the device allows them to be far enough apart to experience phase wrapping relative to each other)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by Merk et. al. (a device configured to use a random forest algorithm and signal phase measurements to determine signal AoAs) modified by the techniques for regression taught by Meltzer to include antennas separated by a distance great enough to experience phase wrapping relative to an incoming signal as taught by Ryzhkov in order to enable the apparatus to receive signals that experience phase wrapping relative to their receptions at different antennas. (Paragraph 8, “The first auxiliary antenna 1 is offset relative to the main antenna 8 by a distance d, which leads to a phase shift of the interference signal received by this antenna relative to the interference signal, received by the main antenna 8.” Note that as above, this phase shift could be greater than 2π which is considered phase wrapping given the specification.)
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection for claim 3 above. Note that the only difference between claim 10 and claim 3 is that claim 10 is directed towards the method whereas claim 3 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 8 above which address this difference.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection for claim 3 above. Note that the difference between claim 17 and claim 3 is that claim 17 is directed towards the article of manufacture holding instructions for the method whereas claim 3 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 15 above which address this difference.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merk et. al. (US 20220308151 A1) in view of Meltzer (Meltzer, R. (2023, August 31). What is Random Forest? [Beginner’s guide + examples]. CareerFoundry.com), further in view of Zhang et. al. (CN 116125374 A).
Regarding claim 4, Merk et. al. as modified by Meltzer teaches all of the limitations of the apparatus in claim 1 as cited above, but does not distinctly disclose the limitation:
wherein the phase measurements are based on antenna responses of the multiple antennas, each of the antennas having a different antenna response than one or more others of the antennas
However, Zhang et. al. teaches that limitation:
wherein the phase measurements are based on antenna responses… (Contents of the Invention, Paragraph 3, “obtain at least two phase differences corresponding to at least two antenna pattern states” and Detailed Ways, 2. Radiation Pattern, “The antenna pattern is usually described by the antenna radiation pattern… The antenna radiation pattern is used to characterize the antenna radiation characteristics (field strength amplitude, phase, polarization) and space angle Graphics of relationships. Different antenna patterns correspond to different antenna pattern states,” which explains how the phase differences (phase measurements in the present application) are based on the antenna pattern states (antenna responses in the present application). Note that with no explicit definition, given the specification, an antenna response is understood to describe how an antenna behaves when transmitting or receiving signals or electromagnetic waves, this includes, potentially radiation patterns or any other antenna patterns)
…of the multiple antennas, (Table 3, Paragraph 5, “The antenna unit of the electronic device in the embodiment of the present application may have two antennas, or three antennas, or four antennas, or more antennas, which is not limited here.”)
each of the antennas having a different antenna response than one or more others of the antennas (Table 5, Paragraph 15, “it can be seen from FIG. 6A , FIG. 6B and FIG. 6C that when the antenna unit 610 of the electronic device 600 is in different antenna pattern states, there are obvious differences in the phases of the three antennas.” Note that as above, the different antenna pattern states are understood to be antenna responses which, as noted in the citation, are in different states for each antenna in the electronic device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by Merk (a device configured to use a random forest algorithm and signal phase measurements to determine signal AoAs) modified by the techniques for regression taught by Meltzer to include the strategy for using phase measurements based on different antenna responses as taught by Zhang in order to improve the AoA estimation accuracy of the apparatus. (Zhang, Table 3, Paragraph 7, “the electronic device can use the phase difference of different antenna pattern states to estimate the angle of arrival of the signal. In this way, the accuracy of AOA estimation can be improved.”)
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection for claim 4 above. Note that the only difference between claim 11 and claim 4 is that claim 11 is directed towards the method whereas claim 4 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 8 above which address this difference.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection for claim 4 above. Note that the difference between claim 18 and claim 4 is that claim 18 is directed towards the article of manufacture holding instructions for the method whereas claim 4 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 15 above which address this difference.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merk et. al. (US 20220308151 A1) in view of Meltzer (Meltzer, R. (2023, August 31). What is Random Forest? [Beginner’s guide + examples]. CareerFoundry.com), further in view of Melville et. al (US 6377214 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Merk et. al. as modified by Meltzer teaches all of the limitations of the apparatus in claim 1 as cited above, but does not distinctly disclose the limitation:
wherein the at least one processing device is configured to repeatedly identify final predictions of the angle of arrival associated with the one or more incoming signals in real-time
However, Melville et. al. teaches that limitation:
wherein the at least one processing device is configured to repeatedly identify final predictions of the angle of arrival associated with the one or more incoming signals in real-time (Detailed Description, Paragraph 4, “The system in accordance with the present invention may be implemented in hardware, in software running on a microprocessor, or in a combination of hardware and software. All such implementations are intended to be within the broad scope of the appended claims. One hardware implementation may include an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). In such an implementation, the ASIC may be formed from 100,000 gates and clocked at 10 MHz. For such an implementation, 15 clock cycles or 1.5 microseconds are required to obtain an estimated angle, which is fast enough to enable real time sorting/blocking of pulses in a signal collection environment.” Note that signals being plural indicates repeated use. Additionally, given the specification the processing device includes any suitable number(s) and type(s) of processors, which can include an ASIC)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by Merk (a device configured to use a random forest algorithm and signal phase measurements to determine signal AoAs) modified by the techniques for regression taught by Meltzer to include use of an ASIC in the processing device as taught by Melville in order to support real-time angle of arrival prediction by the apparatus, further allowing the device to repeatedly make final AoA predictions in real-time. (Detailed Description, Paragraph 4, “For such an implementation, 15 clock cycles or 1.5 microseconds are required to obtain an estimated angle, which is fast enough to enable real time sorting/blocking of pulses in a signal collection environment.”)
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection for claim 7 above. Note that the difference between claim 14 and claim 7 is that claim 14 is directed towards the method whereas claim 7 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 8 above which address this difference.
Further, note that the difference in wording between claim 14 and claim 7 does not constitute a difference in the limitations of the claims; they both still recite the same subject matter in a different order/manner, i.e. the use of a processor to do the same step in claim 7 as in claim 14 does not change the limitation.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection for claim 7 above. Note that the difference between claim 20 and claim 7 is that claim 20 is directed towards the article of manufacture holding instructions for the method whereas claim 7 is directed towards the apparatus that is configured to perform the method. See the rejection for claim 15 above which address this difference.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Schober et. al. (US 20230266422 A1) discloses a method for the estimation of the angle of arrival of a received signal at a communication device. The communication device comprises multiple antennas that may have arbitrary positions and distances between each other on the device. The multiple antennas can potentially be placed in a manner that causes the signals received at each antenna to experience phase wrapping in relation to each other. The method uses a machine learning model to determine the angle of arrival of the signals received. This machine learning model can be trained using phase differences between signals corresponding to particular angles of arrival of the signals. The machine learning model can take the form of a neural network, including a decision tree or random forest algorithm. Park et. al. (US 20170227623 A1) teaches a radio transceiver that implements a method for determining the angle of arrival of a received signal. The method compares measurement data comprising phase measurements (including I/Q data) received from multiple antennas. During comparison of this data, phase/frequency offsets are determined and corrected in order to determine accurate angles of arrival for incoming signals. The multiple antennas are configured to be separated by potentially different distances that force the signals received at each antenna to have slightly different phases. Tsui (US 5497161 A) discloses a receiver device with multiple antennas that is used for determining the angle of arrival of a signal. The multiple antennas are separated by a certain distance which is used in correcting the phase difference of the signals received at the antennas in order to align the signals for use in determining the angle of arrival of the incoming signals. Stitt (US 20200219344 A1) teaches a vehicle system that implements a method for determining the location of a portable access device by calculating the distance between the vehicle and the portable access device and the angles of arrival of the received signals from the portable access device. In determining the angle of arrival of a signal, the system down converts the signal in order to make use of its phase measurements. Additionally, the system recognizes the phase differences between received signals at different antennas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's
disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zane A Rawlings whose telephone number is (571)270-3372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am to 5pm ET.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at (571) 270-3428. 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.
/Z.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2123
/ALEXEY SHMATOV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights