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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12-19-2023 and 3-3-2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 167 and 178 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 167 and 178, the probing phase and model training make the claims indefinite as there is no support in the claims for a probing phase or time to train a model before it appears to be used in the claims. Further clarification on model training and “probe phase” 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 161-180 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.
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 Banklnt’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)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claims 161, 168 and 180 are directed towards a generic processor and a series of mathematical steps and is therefore a process.
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.
Claims 161, 168 and 180 are directed to a method of, and computer system for, signal analysis that is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by a general purpose computer.
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.
Claims 162-167 and 169-179 discloses the additional steps of spectrum analysis and comparison. 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, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
The method recited in claims 161-180 merely uses a computer system including generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea using generic computer components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea and does not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or another technology.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 161-164, 167-170, 173-175 and 177-180 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0107512, published June 12, 2003 in view of Cheung, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0002606, published January 3, 2008.
As per claims 161, 168 and 180, McFarland discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; (McFarland, Fig. 2)
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: generate at least one sample corresponding to at least one radar signal or at least one non-radar signal (McFarland, ¶32);
form at least one spectrogram using time domain and frequency domain characteristics of the at least one sample (McFarland, ¶32 and 37 using FFT and DFT);
pass the at least one spectrogram to a model to detect a presence of the at least one radar signal and to further classify the at least one radar signal as either interference/noise or radar present, and to estimate a bandwidth of the at least one radar signal that has been detected (McFarland, ¶32);
and determine the at least one radar signal to be in-band or out-of-band relative to a shared spectrum band, based on the estimated bandwidth of the at least one radar signal (McFarland, ¶17).
McFarland fails to disclose wherein the at least one spectrogram is formed as a result of subdividing an observation window of the at least one sample into a number of time slots of a given duration, computing a power spectral density for a subset of the time slots having a higher determined energy relative to other time slots, and combining one or more computed power spectral densities of the subset.
Cheung teaches signal analysis through spectral density in time slots using both frequency and time domains (¶24 and 28-30).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the analysis of Cheung in order to gain the benefit of providing improved signal analysis with faster processing as taught by Cheung (¶25).
As per claims 162 and 169, McFarland as modified by Cheung discloses the apparatus of claim 161, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine the at least one radar signal to be out-of-band in response to the estimated bandwidth being outside of the shared spectrum band (McFarland, ¶17).
As per claims 163 and 170, McFarland as modified by Cheung further discloses the apparatus of claim 161, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: estimate, using the model, the bandwidth of the at least one radar signal as a result of detecting bright spots within the at least one spectrogram, the bright spots comprising spectral components that have higher power relative to other spectral components within the computed one or more power spectral densities for the subset of the time slots (Cheung, Fig. 6 and ¶30).
As per claims 164 and 175, McFarland as modified by Cheung further discloses the apparatus of claim 161, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: compute the energy of a time slot using sample increments given with an integer, the integer being greater than or equal to one, where no sample is skipped when the integer is equal to one; and select a lower bound for the integer so that the energy computation occurs within a time threshold (Cheung, ¶29).
As per claims 167 and 178, McFarland as modified by Cheung further discloses the apparatus of claim 161, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: monitor an amount of time it takes to process the energy determination, the spectrogram formation, and the bandwidth estimation during a probing phase prior to training the model; and in response to the energy determination, the spectrogram formation, or the bandwidth estimation taking longer than a duration of the observation window, use an additional processor core to speed up the process that takes longer than the observation window (McFarland, ¶36 and Cheung, ¶25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use additional processing power when needed in order to gain the obvious benefit of completing analysis in a timely manner.
As per claim 173, McFarland as modified by Cheung further discloses the method of claim 168, wherein: the at least one spectrogram is a matrix having a first dimension corresponding to the number of time slots of the given duration, and a second dimension corresponding to a number of frequency bins of the power spectral density; and the at least one spectrogram is an image whose pixel values represent signal power across different frequency bins and the time slots (McFarland, ¶35 and Cheung, Fig. 7).
As per claim 174, McFarland as modified by Cheung further discloses the method of claim 168, further comprising: skipping computing the power spectral density for time slots not in the subset having the relatively higher computed energy; where a number of time slots in the subset is less than the number of time slots (Cheung, ¶25 where un-necessary data is skipped to improve speed).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to skip certain time slots, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by McFarland and Cheung in optimizing processing power.
As per claim 177, McFarland as modified by Cheung further discloses the method of claim 168, further comprising: monitoring an amount of time it takes to process the energy determination, the spectrogram formation, and the bandwidth estimation during a probing phase prior to training the model; and in response to the energy determination, the spectrogram formation, or the bandwidth estimation taking longer than a duration of the observation window, using an additional processor core to speed up the process that takes longer than the observation window (Cheung, ¶59 using multiple cores).
As per claim 179, McFarland as modified by Cheung further discloses the method of claim 178, wherein the energy determination, the spectrogram formation, and/or the bandwidth estimation occur in parallel with the detecting of the presence of the at least one radar signal (McFarland, ¶17 and Cheung, ¶59).
Claim(s) 165 and 166 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland and Cheung as applied to claim 161 above, and further in view of Yang, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0287035, filed February 17, 2020.
As per claim 165, McFarland as modified by Cheung discloses monitoring a frequency band and determining if the radar signal is in or out, including the signal bandwidth (McFarland, ¶17) however they fail to disclose a separate band center frequency bigger than the shared band.
Yang teaches a center frequency band for communications (¶108).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the band and bandwidth limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 166, McFarland as modified by Cheung and Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 161, further comprising an environmental sensing capability receiver that detects the presence of the at least one radar signal and generates the at least one sample corresponding to the at least one radar signal, wherein the environmental sensing capability receiver is an artificial intelligence radio transceiver software-defined radio environmental sensing capability radio frequency receiver (McFarland, ¶17 and Yang, ¶157).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an AI receiver in order to gain the benefit of using emerging technology for efficient operation.
Claim(s) 176 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland and Cheung as applied to claim168 above, and further in view of Ohashi, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0168008, filed February 10, 2021.
As per claim 176, McFarland as modified by Cheung discloses the method of claim 168 but fails to disclose the model being a CNN.
Ohashi teaches a CNN (¶38).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a CNN, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by McFarland and Cheung. The examiner submits it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine which well-known algorithms to use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 171 and 172 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim, any intervening claims and overcoming the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646