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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a first constraint condition construction module" in claim 7.
“a first restrictive condition construction module” in claim 7.
“a first mode solving module” in claim 7.
“a second mode solving module” in claim 7.
“a waveform design module” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Contingent Limitations:
The Examiner would like to point out that claims 1-6 are method claims which include the following contingent limitations:
“if the integrated communication, sensing and computation system operates in a first mode, constructing a first optimization condition set according to the first constraint condition and the first restrictive condition, and solving the first optimization condition set in a first alternating optimization process to obtain a first beamforming weight optimization value for the receiving beamformer and a second beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer;” (Claim 1), where the features of “constructing a first optimization condition set according to the first constraint condition and the first restrictive condition, and solving the first optimization condition set in a first alternating optimization process to obtain a first beamforming weight optimization value for the receiving beamformer and a second beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer;” are contingent on the step of “if the integrated communication, sensing and computation system operates in a first mode,”. Therefore, the features recited after the “if the integrated communication, sensing and computation system operates in a first mode” limitation do not carry patentable weight. The feature in claim 1 of “and generating a transmitted waveform for the transmitted signal by using the second beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer in the first mode, or generating a transmitted waveform for the transmitted signal by using the fourth beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer in the second mode” also does not carry patentable weight as it is contingent on a step of operating on a first or second mode.
“if the integrated communication, sensing and computation system operates in a second mode, constructing a second optimization condition set according to the first constraint condition and the second restrictive condition, and solving the second optimization condition set to obtain a third beamforming weight optimization value for the receiving beamformer and a fourth beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer;” (Claim 1), where the features of “constructing a second optimization condition set according to the first constraint condition and the second restrictive condition, and solving the second optimization condition set to obtain a third beamforming weight optimization value for the receiving beamformer and a fourth beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer” are contingent on the step of “if the integrated communication, sensing and computation system operates in a second mode”. Therefore, the features recited after the “if the integrated communication, sensing and computation system operates in a second mode” limitation do not carry patentable weight. The feature in claim 1 of “and generating a transmitted waveform for the transmitted signal by using the second beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer in the first mode, or generating a transmitted waveform for the transmitted signal by using the fourth beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer in the second mode” also does not carry patentable weight as it is contingent on a step of operating on a first or second mode.
“when a first weight value of the first beamforming weight optimization value is given, obtaining the second weight value by using the first constraint condition;” (Claim 3), where the feature of “obtaining the second weight value by using the first constraint condition” is contingent on the feature of “when a first weight value of the first beamforming weight optimization value is given”. Therefore, all features of the claim after the “when” limitation do not carry patentable weight.
“when a fourth weight value of the fourth beamforming weight optimization value is given, transforming the second constraint condition into a third constraint condition based on the fourth weight value and a matching weight factor;” (Claim 5), where the feature of “, transforming the second constraint condition into a third constraint condition based on the fourth weight value and a matching weight factor;” is contingent on the feature of “when a fourth weight value of the fourth beamforming weight optimization value is given”. Therefore, all features of the claim after the “when” limitation do not carry patentable weight.
“when a third weight value of the third beamforming weight optimization value is given, transforming the fourth constraint condition into a fifth constraint condition;” (Claim 6), where the feature of “, transforming the fourth constraint condition into a fifth constraint condition;” is contingent on the feature of “when a third weight value of the third beamforming weight optimization value is given”. Therefore, all features of the claim after the “when” limitation do not carry patentable weight.
Therefore, these method claims are being interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation where all limitations executed due to contingent steps are not performed (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Continent Limitations). Note that dependent claims 2-6 are all dependent on claim 1 and rely on the contingent method steps of claim 1 as recited above.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “the initial transmitted signal of each of the sensing devices;”. This limitation should recite, “an initial transmitted signal of each of the sensing devices;”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensing device" in "wherein a transmitted signal of the sensing device is obtained by performing beamforming on an initial symbol by the transmitting beamformer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as multiple sensing devices have been claimed and therefore it is unclear which “the sensing device” is being referred to.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second weight value" in “obtaining the second weight value by using the first constraint condition;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “the sensing device” in “wherein a transmitted signal of the sensing device is a transmitted signal obtained by performing beamforming on an initial transmitted signal by the transmitting beamformer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system for determining the position of an aerial vehicle and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A waveform design method, applied to an integrated communication, sensing and computation system, wherein the integrated communication, sensing and computation system comprises a transmitting beamformer, a receiving beamformer, and multiple sensing devices, wherein a transmitted signal of the sensing device is obtained by performing beamforming on an initial symbol by the transmitting beamformer, and the method comprises:
acquiring a received vector aggregated by the receiving beamformer, calculating a result standard deviation between the received vector and a true data value, and minimizing the result standard deviation to construct a first constraint condition;
calculating a covariance matrix of the transmitted signal according to the transmitting beamformer, and obtaining a first restrictive condition and a second restrictive condition based on the covariance matrix;
NOTE: THE LIMITATIONS AFTER THIS LIMITATION OF CLAIM 1 DO NOT CARRY PATENTABLE WEIGHT AS THEY ARE CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS WITHIN A METHOD CLAIM. THERFORE THE 35 U.S.C. 101 ANALYSIS IS BASED ON THE LIMITATIONS OF CLAIM 1 WHICH ARE NOT CONTINGENT.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method and therefore eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of:
“calculating a result standard deviation between the received vector and a true data value,”
“minimizing the result standard deviation to construct a first constraint condition;”
“calculating a covariance matrix of the transmitted signal according to the transmitting beamformer,” and
“obtaining a first restrictive condition and a second restrictive condition based on the covariance matrix;”
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the human mind and are simply mathematical manipulation of data. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of the limitation of, “acquiring a received vector aggregated by the receiving beamformer,” amounts to mere data gathering and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the many of the limitations of the dependent claims are subsequent process performed due to contingent method steps and therefore do not carry patentable weight. Furthermore, the dependent claims recite limitations further defining the mental process and recite further data gathering and the mathematical manipulation of the gathered data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering or data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-6 are not patent eligible based on their broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following references are considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as they disclose a beamforming process utilizing conditions to optimize beamforming weights for generating waveforms.
WANG et al. (US 20230033028 A1)
Zhou et al. (US 20160013850 A1)
PIIRAINEN et al. (US 20220021426 A1)
LEE et al. (US 20250337462 A1)
Hgren et al. (US 20130083942 A1)
In reference to independent claim 7, the prior arts made of record individually or in
any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 7. Specifically in regards to claim 7, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or in combination render obvious the combined features of:
“a first mode solving module, configured to, if the integrated communication, sensing and computation system operates in a first mode, construct a first optimization condition set according to the first constraint condition and the first restrictive condition, and solve the first optimization condition set in a first alternating optimization process to obtain a first beamforming weight optimization value for the receiving beamformer and a second beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer;
a second mode solving module, configured to, if the integrated communication, sensing and computation system operates in a second mode, construct a second optimization condition set according to the first constraint condition and the second restrictive condition, and solve the second optimization condition set to obtain a third beamforming weight optimization value for the receiving beamformer and a fourth beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer; and
a waveform design module, configured to generate a transmitted waveform for the transmitted signal by using the first beamforming weight optimization value for the receiving beamformer and the second beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer in the first mode, or generate a transmitted waveform for the transmitted signal by using the third beamforming weight optimization value for the receiving beamformer and the fourth beamforming weight optimization value for the transmitting beamformer in the second mode.”.
Claims 8-10 are systems claims which implement the method of claim 1 and therefore the contingent limitations of claim 1 carry patentable weight when incorporated into a system claim. As such, the same reasons of allowance using the prior arts of record as shown for claim 7 above also applies for claims 8-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648