DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 13, lines 7-9, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 13, lines 10-14, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 14, lines 4-10 filed 12/10/2025, with respect the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of amended claims 1, 9, and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of amended claims 1, 9 and 11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see Page 16, line 1 to Page 19, line 7 filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of amended claims 1, 9, 11 and previously presented claims 2-8 and 12-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9 and 11 add the step of “receiving a signal from a wireless communication device…” and modify the initial step of “determining a value” to “measuring a value”. The addition of “receiving a signal” at a high level of generality is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The change from “determining a value” to “measuring a value” does not meaningfully limit the claim further especially since there is no additional structure or limitation imposed through the change of one word. These changes and the claims taken as a whole do not add significantly more to limit the claims such as to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract ideas. The Applicant advances four arguments against the 101 rejection of amended claims 1, 9 and 11. A restatement of each argument with Examiner’s response follows:
Argument 1: These claims recite receiving a signal that has reflected against a surface and measuring a value of at least one energy property of the signal, the at least one energy property comprising at least an energy content of the signal. Taken together, Applicant's claimed features are not capable of being performed in the human mind, as the human mind cannot receive and measure properties of a reflected signal. (Page 16, line 18 to Page 17 line 1)
Examiner’s Response: The claims are directed to determining the characteristics of surfaces based on the changes to an electromagnetic wave which has interacted with the surface. There is nothing in the claims which meaningfully limit the characteristics of electromagnetic wave or the specific characteristics which are used in the determination. The claims are not directed to producing a specific radiofrequency (RF) signal and a specific means of transmitting, receiving, or measuring the RF signal. While the human mind is not equipped to receive transmissions, it has been found that by the courts that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Argument 2: to the extent Applicant's claims recite a judicial exception, which Applicant disputes, they nonetheless recite a practical application, namely, an improvement in the functioning of wireless communications, thus satisfying Prong Two of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis. (Page 17, lines 12-15)
Examiner’s Response: MPEP 2106.05(a) which covers improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field specifies that the claims must cover a particular solution as opposed to claiming the idea of a solution. Applicant is stating that their invention improves wireless communication without stating how the claims amount to a particular solution.
Argument 3: Applicant's claims recite more than well-known activities known to the communications industry. For example, Applicant's claimed features are not well-known. This is evidenced by the Office Action's cited references that do not disclose the claimed selection, as described below. (Page 18, lines 7-11)
Examiner’s Response: See the response to the Applicant’s arguments against the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection below.
Argument 4: Similar to (USPTO Examples) Example 4, Claims 1, 9, and 11 recite receiving a signal that has reflected against a surface and measuring a value of at least one energy property of the signal, the at least one energy property comprising at least an energy content of the signal. These features improve the functionality of wireless communications devices, which are a particular machine and not simply generic computer components. As was the case with Example 4, Applicant's claimed features are inextricably tied to wireless communications technology and are distinct from and do not amount to an abstract concept or concept similar to those found by the courts to be abstract, such as a fundamental economic practice, method of organizing human activity, an idea itself (standing alone) or a mathematical relationship, or performance of a steps within the human mind. (Page 18, line 18 to Page 19 line 5)
Examiner’s Response: The key teaching of Example 4 Claim 1 is that the limitations placed on the mathematical models and operations resulting in a particular improvement is what makes the claim patentable.
The meaningful limitations placed upon the application of the claimed mathematical operations show that the claim is not directed to performing mathematical operations on a computer alone. Rather, the combination of elements impose meaningful limits in that the mathematical operations are applied to improve an existing technology (global positioning) by improving the signal-acquisition sensitivity of the receiver to extend the usefulness of the technology into weak-signal environments and providing the location information for display on the mobile device. (last paragraph page 12 of USPTO examples)
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections, they do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1, 9 and 11. Applicant argues that the prior art only discloses a bi-static architecture where the transmitting and receiving of signals to characterize the environment is only transmitted from a base station and received by another base station, see Page 20 line 13 to Page 21 line 5 attempting to draw a distinction over the prior art by stating only a single base station is used in their disclosure and labeling this configuration “the single node approach”. Examiner responds that the Applicant’s citations of Zwirn (U.S. PG Pub. 20200142047) neglects that Zwirn includes mobile phones as network nodes in the disclosure ([0032] The transmitting subject network nodes (11) may be of any kind known in the art, e.g., base stations and/or mobile phones in a cellular network.). In the disclosure of Zwirn, there are transmitting nodes (Fig. 1, node signal receivers transmitting subject nodes 11) that can be static or mobile ([0034] Each of the transmitting subject network nodes (11) may be either stationary or mobile.), thus the transmitting nodes are inclusive of wireless network devices such as mobile phones and node signal receivers (Fig. 1, node signal receivers 30) which are explicitly taught to be base stations ([0038] In further embodiments, at least one of the node signal receivers (30) is associated (e.g., integrated) with a node of a wireless network. For example, with cellular subject networks, at least one of the node signal receivers (30) may be integrated with a cellular base station.). The Applicant instant application is a species of the broader disclosure of Zwirn with regards to the communication network topology.
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 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-9 and 11-21 recite a method, computer storage media, and an apparatus (radio base station) for determining a characteristic of a surface between a radio base station and a wireless communication device through the properties of the uplink transmission signal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.”, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 9 recites a computer storage medium to carry out the method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 (and its dependents) recites a device to carry out the method. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claim 1, and similarly claims 9 and 11, recite a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality of mathematical concepts and mental process as defined at least by the claimed steps of:
determining a current characteristic of a surface, the method comprising:
determining, based on one or more observed signal energy property values each being associated with a characteristic of said the surface, the current characteristic of the surface for the measured value of the at least one energy property of the received signal.
The step of “determining… the current characteristic of a surface” may be performed by evaluating the results which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The step of “determining, based on one or more observed signal… the current characteristic of said the surface” may be performed by evaluating the results which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Therefore, such steps of “determining” encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-8 and 12-21 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process. The steps as claimed in claims 2-8 and 12-21 may be performed by evaluating the data received, creating a database, developing a machine learning model, and calculating with the data to achieve the results utilizing mathematical concepts, and evaluating the results which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 12-21 also fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The only additional elements of claims 1, 9 and 11 are “receiving a signal…” and “measuring a value of at least one energy property of the signal…”. Such elements, at a high-level of generality, merely recite data gathering by receiving a signal from a wireless device and measuring a value of the signal. As such, such steps are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception which serve to indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. Further, claims 9 and 11 recited the method as being performed by a processing unit. The processing unit is recited at a high level of generality. The processing unit is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 2 and 12 discloses “compare the determined value”. Claims 5, 15, and 19 disclose “a signal being received within a predetermined time period”. Claims 6, 16, and 20 disclose “the determined characteristic indicating a reflectivity metric of the surface”. These additional steps are all extraneous pre-solution activity. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-9 and 11-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for determining and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zwirn (U.S. PG Pub. 20200142047), hereinafter Zwirn.
Regarding claim 1, Zwirn discloses a method for a radio base station (Fig. 1, Node Signal Receiver 30; [0038] In further embodiments, at least one of the node signal receivers (30) is associated (e.g., integrated) with a node of a wireless network. For example, with cellular subject networks, at least one of the node signal receivers (30) may be integrated with a cellular base station.) of determining a current characteristic of a surface ([0012] methods and systems for acquiring information regarding terrain and/or objects within a target volume using wireless networks), the method comprising:
receiving a signal from a wireless communication device (Fig. 1, transmitting subject network node antenna, 11, [0032] The transmitting subject network nodes (11) may be of any kind known in the art, e.g., base stations and/or mobile phones in a cellular network.), the signal having reflected against the surface before arriving at the radio base station ([0046] The local estimated signal thus provides “typical” values of objects' reflectivity, which may be based on compounding multiple bi-static measurements.);
measuring a value of at least one energy property of a signal the at least one energy property comprising at least an energy content of the signal ([0046] an estimate of the local signal reflectivity within the target volume); and
determining, based on one or more observed signal energy property values each being associated with a characteristic of the surface, the current characteristic of the surface ([0046] spatial imaging provides an estimate of the local signal reflectivity within the target volume (“local estimated signal”), resulting from terrain) for the measured value of the at least one energy property of the received signal.
Regarding claim 9, Zwirn discloses a computer storage medium storing a computer program comprising computer-executable instructions for causing a radio base station (Fig. 1, Node Signal Receiver 30; [0038] In further embodiments, at least one of the node signal receivers (30) is associated (e.g., integrated) with a node of a wireless network. For example, with cellular subject networks, at least one of the node signal receivers (30) may be integrated with a cellular base station.) to perform a method of determining a current characteristic of a surface when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit included in the radio base station, the method comprising:
receiving a signal from a wireless communication device (Fig. 1, transmitting subject network node antenna, 11, [0032] The transmitting subject network nodes (11) may be of any kind known in the art, e.g., base stations and/or mobile phones in a cellular network.), the signal having reflected against the surface before arriving at the radio base station ([0046] The local estimated signal thus provides “typical” values of objects' reflectivity, which may be based on compounding multiple bi-static measurements.);
measuring a value of at least one energy property of a signal the at least one energy property comprising at least an energy content of the signal ([0046] an estimate of the local signal reflectivity within the target volume); and
determining, based on one or more observed signal energy property values each being associated with a characteristic of the surface, the current characteristic of the surface ([0046] spatial imaging provides an estimate of the local signal reflectivity within the target volume (“local estimated signal”), resulting from terrain) for the measured value of the at least one energy property of the received signal.
Regarding claim 11, Zwirn discloses a radio base station configured to determine a current characteristic of a surface, comprising a processing unit and a memory, said the memory containing instructions executable by the processing unit, to configure the radio base station (Fig. 1, Node Signal Receiver 30; [0038] In further embodiments, at least one of the node signal receivers (30) is associated (e.g., integrated) with a node of a wireless network. For example, with cellular subject networks, at least one of the node signal receivers (30) may be integrated with a cellular base station.) to:
receive a signal from a wireless communication device (Fig. 1, transmitting subject network node antenna, 11, [0032] The transmitting subject network nodes (11) may be of any kind known in the art, e.g., base stations and/or mobile phones in a cellular network.), the signal having reflected against the surface before arriving at the radio base station ([0046] The local estimated signal thus provides “typical” values of objects' reflectivity, which may be based on compounding multiple bi-static measurements.);
measure a value of at least one energy property of a signal the at least one energy property comprising at least an energy content of the signal ([0046] an estimate of the local signal reflectivity within the target volume); and
determine, based on one or more observed signal energy property values each being associated with a characteristic of the surface, the current characteristic of the surface ([0046] spatial imaging provides an estimate of the local signal reflectivity within the target volume (“local estimated signal”), resulting from terrain) for the measured value of the at least one energy property of the received signal.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Zwirn discloses the method of claim 1 and the radio base station of claim 11, further comprising:
comparing ([0105] In certain embodiments of step 520, the classifying detected objects may employ any classification method known in the art.) the determined value of the at least one energy property ([0051] For each of the one or more spatial locations within the target volume (60), determine the bi-static local estimated signal) with the one or more observed signal energy property values, each value being associated with a characteristic of the surface ([0105] One or more object characteristics may be computed. The object characteristics may include, for example, parameters relating to object dimensions, …, and/or parameters relating to the object's reflectivity.); and
determining the current characteristic of the surface comprising: selecting as the current characteristic of the surface the particular characteristic associated with the observed signal energy property value ([0105] The computed object characteristics may then be compared to reference models associated with certain object types) to which the determined value of the at least one energy property is considered to best correspond.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zwirn discloses the method of claim 2 and the radio base station of claim 11, further comprising:
creating a database comprising the one or more observed signal energy property values by recording at least one signal energy property value and a characteristic of the surface against which the signal is reflected ([0115] (iii) Defining a multi-dimensional characteristic space, whose dimensionality matches the number of object characteristics, and mapping object types to sub-spaces)for one or more wireless communication devices one or both of at different positions and/or and for different direction-of-arrivals of the reflected signal being received at the radio base station ([0110] The association physical attributes may include one or more of the following: (a) Parameters relating to spatial location; (b) Parameters relating to orientation; (e) Parameters relating to object reflectivity.), wherein the selecting as the current characteristic of the surface comprises:
selecting, from the database, the surface characteristic corresponding to one or both of a current position of the wireless communication device and a current direction-of-arrival of the reflected signal being received at the radio base station, and to the value of the at least one energy property of the signal received for the wireless communication device ([0116] (b) One or more object characteristics may be computed for the object, for each of multiple local estimated signal frames separately. The object characteristics may include, for example, parameters relating to object dimensions, parameters relating to the object's current velocity, and/or parameters relating to the object's reflectivity.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Zwirn discloses the method of claim 1 and the radio base station of claim 11, further comprising:
acquiring a machine learning, ML, model having been trained with observed values of the at least one energy property of signals received from a wireless communication device, a position of the wireless communication device when one or both transmitting each signal and a direction-of-arrival of each reflected signal being received at the radio base station, and the characteristic of the surface against which each signal is reflected ([0105] The computed object characteristics may then be compared to reference models associated with certain object types using any technique known in the art, for instance: [0109] (iv) Employing neural-network based algorithms, e.g., deep learning algorithms;);
supplying the determined value of the at least one energy property for the received signal and one or both of a current position of the wireless communication device and a current direction-of-arrival of the reflected signal being received at the radio base station to the acquired trained ML model, the trained ML model estimating for the one or both of the position and/or direction-of-arrival, using a relationship between the at least one energy property for the received signal and the characteristic of the surface, which surface characteristic the determined value of the at least one energy property energy property represents ([0116] (b) One or more object characteristics may be computed for the object, for each of multiple local estimated signal frames separately. The object characteristics may include, for example, parameters relating to object dimensions, parameters relating to the object's current velocity, and/or parameters relating to the object's reflectivity.); and the determining of the current characteristic of said the surface (12) comprising:
selecting as the current characteristic of the surface the surface characteristic being output by the trained ML model ([0110] The association physical attributes may include one or more of the following: (a) Parameters relating to spatial location; (b) Parameters relating to orientation; (e) Parameters relating to object reflectivity.). Deep Learning is a type of machine learning (Nwanganga, Fred and Chapple, Mike; Practical Machine Learning in R, Chapter 1: What is Machine Learning?; John Wiley & Sons. (2020); Pg. 7, lines 11-12, Deep learning is a further subdivision of machine learning that uses a set of complex techniques, known as neural networks.). The use of a secondary reference in connection with a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection is proper when the secondary reference is cited to show that the primary reference contains an “enabling disclosure”. See MPEP § 2131.01.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Zwirn discloses the method of claims 1 and the radio base station of claim 11, the determined characteristic indicating a reflectivity metric of the surface ([0110] the detected objects have sufficient similarity in one or more physical attributes (“association physical attributes”).) from which a constitution of the surface can be identified ([0110] The association physical attributes may include one or more of the following: (e) Parameters relating to object reflectivity).
Regarding claim 20, Zwirn discloses the method of claim 2, the determined characteristic indicating a reflectivity metric of the surface ([0110] the detected objects have sufficient similarity in one or more physical attributes (“association physical attributes”).) from which a constitution of the surface can be identified ([0110] The association physical attributes may include one or more of the following: (e) Parameters relating to object reflectivity).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0142047), in view of Pratt (US 9,037,414), hereinafter Pratt.
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 19, Zwirn disclose the method of claim 1, the radio base station of claim 11, and the method of claim 2. Zwirn fails to disclose wherein a signal being received within a predetermined time period from a firstly received direct-path signal of the wireless communication device is considered to be as signal reflected against the surface before arriving at the radio base station.
However, Pratt teaches a method of soil surface characterization based on the reflectivity of RF signals in the range of wireless networks where a signal being received within a predetermined time period from a firstly received direct-path signal of the wireless communication device is considered to be as signal reflected against the surface before arriving at the radio base station.
Zwirn and Pratt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of radiofrequency surface characterization technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Zwirn by combining it with the known techniques of Pratt. The resulting combination would yield a predictable result of a way to distinguish reflected from non-reflected signals.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Zwirn discloses the method of claim 6 and the radio base station of claim 16. Zwirn fails to teach wherein a reflectivity metric exceeding a predetermined first threshold value indicates that the surface is wet, while a reflectivity metric being below a predetermined lower second threshold value indicates that the surface is dry.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pratt, Fig. 5
However, Pratt teaches a reflectivity metric exceeding a predetermined first threshold value indicates that the surface is wet (Fig. 5, col. 10, lines 33-36; It is also seen that as the soil moisture increases, the reflection coefficient corresponding to the V component is reduced, while the magnitude of the H component increases slightly.), while a reflectivity metric being below a predetermined lower second threshold value indicates that the surface is dry (col 3, lines 27-31; FIG. 5 is an example prior art plot of a reflection coefficient versus incident angle illustrating that different incident polarization components yield different reflection coefficient values versus soil moisture, changing the polarization state of the reflected signal.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pratt by combining it with the known technique for distinguishing the moisture content of surfaces through reflectivity metrics of Pratt. The resulting combination would yield a predictable result of a robust technique for surface moisture characterization that can be utilized with wireless networks as described by Pratt (col. 2, lines 7-11; the potential of remote measurement of soil moisture using available WLAN signals provides multiple advantages, including extremely low cost measurement with almost ubiquitous coverage in populated regions.). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 8, 18 and 21, Zwirn discloses the method of claim 1, the radio base station of claim 11 and the method of claim 2. Zwirn fails to teach the energy property of the received signal comprises one or more of energy content of the received signal, degree of polarization of the received signal in a horizontal direction, vertical direction, or both, and difference in received energy between two different polarizations.
However, Pratt teaches the energy property of the received signal comprises one or more of energy content of the received signal, degree of polarization of the received signal (col. 7, lines 49-50; dual-polarized antennas capture orthogonally-polarized components of the signal) in a horizontal direction, vertical direction, or both, and difference in received energy between two different polarizations (col. 2, lines 36-40; a microwave radiometer has been used to infer soil moisture from polarization component magnitudes using non-coherent detection of ambient reflected microwaves over small areas for assimilation into precipitation models.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zwirn in view of Pratt to incorporate polarization measurements of the reflected radiofrequency signals to gain the advantage of measurements that correlate with surface properties as noted by Pratt (Col. 8, lines 53-59; as the soil moisture varies, the dielectric properties of the soil change, which alters the magnitude and phase of the reflected ground signals, ultimately modifying the polarization behavior of the received signal as a function of frequency. The polarization-frequency response evolves through a continuum of states as the soil moisture changes, leading to polarization-frequency "signatures" that can be interpreted with site specific RF calibration to estimate soil moisture levels.); and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571)272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646