Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 22 February, 2024 and 17 April, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim is directed to a method and recites 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 6:
Claim 6:
An azimuth estimation method comprising: transmitting a transmitted wave from a plurality of transmitting antennas, estimating an azimuth of a target based on a first received signal received by a virtual array, the virtual array comprises the plurality of transmitting antennas and a plurality of receiving antennas, calculating an estimated power of the first received signal at the estimated azimuth, calculating a second received signal assuming that a transmitting azimuth of the plurality of transmitting antennas and an arrival azimuth of the first received signal are the same from an estimated mode matrix at the azimuth and the estimated power, the second received signal corresponding to a signal restored from the first received signal, calculating errors from the first received signal and the second received signal, and determining the estimated azimuth is a false azimuth when the calculated errors are larger than a set determination threshold.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 6 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 6 recites “An azimuth estimation method comprising: transmitting a transmitted wave from a plurality of transmitting antennas, estimating an azimuth of a target based on a first received signal received by a virtual array, the virtual array comprises the plurality of transmitting antennas and a plurality of receiving antennas, calculating an estimated power of the first received signal at the estimated azimuth, calculating a second received signal assuming that a transmitting azimuth of the plurality of transmitting antennas and an arrival azimuth of the first received signal are the same from an estimated mode matrix at the azimuth and the estimated power, the second received signal corresponding to a signal restored from the first received signal, calculating errors from the first received signal and the second received signal, and determining the estimated azimuth is a false azimuth when the calculated errors are larger than a set determination threshold.”
The focus of the claim (i.e., “calculating an estimated power of the first received signal at the estimated azimuth, calculating a second received signal assuming that a transmitting azimuth of the plurality of transmitting antennas and an arrival azimuth of the first received signal are the same from an estimated mode matrix at the azimuth and the estimated power, the second received signal corresponding to a signal restored from the first received signal, calculating errors from the first received signal and the second received signal”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “calculating an estimated power of the first received signal at the estimated azimuth, calculating a second received signal assuming that a transmitting azimuth of the plurality of transmitting antennas and an arrival azimuth of the first received signal are the same from an estimated mode matrix at the azimuth and the estimated power, the second received signal corresponding to a signal restored from the first received signal, calculating errors from the first received signal and the second received signal” are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
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 additional limitation(s) of “transmitting a transmitted wave from a plurality of transmitting antennas, estimating an azimuth of a target based on a first received signal received by a virtual array, the virtual array comprises the plurality of transmitting antennas and a plurality of receiving antennas […] and determining the estimated azimuth is a false azimuth when the calculated errors are larger than a set determination threshold” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied. Furthermore, the additional limitation “determining the estimated azimuth is a false azimuth when the calculated errors are larger than a set determination threshold” contains contingent claim language. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
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 mathematical concept of claim 6.
The limitation(s) of “transmitting a transmitted wave from a plurality of transmitting antennas, estimating an azimuth of a target based on a first received signal received by a virtual array, the virtual array comprises the plurality of transmitting antennas and a plurality of receiving antennas […] and determining the estimated azimuth is a false azimuth when the calculated errors are larger than a set determination threshold” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 6 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 6 is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. However, the Examiner would like to note that there is a possibility the scope of the claims would be significantly changed after the claims are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action; thus, further search and consideration will be made after official amendment is filed on record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest reference BIALER et al. (US 2021/0325510 A1) discloses (Examiner’s note: What BIALER does not disclose is ) a radar system comprising: a plurality of transmitting antennas (MIMO radar system 110 [0032]); a plurality of receiving antennas (MIMO radar system 110 [0032]); an azimuth estimation unit configured to estimate an azimuth of a target based on a first received signal received by a candidate receive angle
θ
R
X
[0038]), beamforming result [0042]) from a mode matrix (a Hermitian matrix [0042]) and an estimated power of the first received signal in the azimuth estimated by the azimuth estimation unit (the elements of the vector are complex values that indicate phase and amplitude. That is, the beamforming matrix A for every
θ
T
X
and
θ
R
X
pair is given by Eq. (4) [0040]), assuming that a transmitting azimuth of the plurality of transmitting antennas is the same as an arrival azimuth of the first received signal (a direct path is assumed (i.e., )
θ
T
X
=
θ
R
X
) [0042]); (
A
d
i
r
e
c
t
is a subset of the beamforming matrix A and is based on the assumption of a real object 120 (i.e., that the transmit angle
θ
T
X
and the receive angle
θ
R
X
are the same) [0042]), wherein the second received signal corresponds to a signal restored from the first received signal (beamforming result [0042]); determine if a beamforming result exceeds a threshold value [0042] and for the real object 120-1, the assumption of a direct path is correct. Thus, the beamforming result will likely exceed the detection threshold TD. However, for the ghost object 120-2, the assumption of a direct path is incorrect. Thus, the beamforming result may not exceed the detection threshold TD [0044].
Furthermore, WU et al. (US 2022/0268911 A1) discloses a radar circuit uses computer processing circuitry for processing data corresponding to reflection signals via a sparse array. Output data indicative of signal magnitude associated with the reflection signals is generated, and then angle-of-arrival information is discerned therefrom by (e.g., iteratively): correlating the output data with at least one spatial frequency support vector indicative of a correlation peak for the output data; generating upper-side and lower-side support vectors which are neighbors along the spatial frequency spectrum for said at least one spatial frequency support vector, and providing, via a correlation of the upper-side and lower-side support vectors and said at least one spatial frequency support vector, at least one new vector that is more refined along the spatial frequency spectrum for said at least one spatial frequency support vector. Specifically, WU discloses that uniform antenna array has transmitting antennas and receiving antennas [0028]. The MIMO virtual array provides an output that is used to estimate angle of arrival (AoA) information [0031]. Additionally, WU discloses that the virtual array consists of repeating antenna position patterns of the Rx antenna array centered at the Tx antenna positions (or vice versa) [0040].
Further still, AIZAWA (US 2015/0130655 A1 cited in Applicant IDS) discloses a radar apparatus to receive a transmission wave reflected by a target object by antennas, and includes a signal analysis unit to analyze reception waves, and to obtain amplitudes and phases of the reception waves, at a frequency with which reception strength shows a peak; a direction detection unit to detect a direction of the target object based on the phases of the reception waves; an estimated amplitude and phase output unit to output estimated amplitudes and estimated phases of reception waves to be received, assuming that the target object exists in the detected direction; and a comparison unit to compare at least one of the amplitudes and the phases for each of the antennas such that the amplitude or phase obtained by the signal analysis unit is compared with that output by the estimated amplitude and phase output unit.
However, Applicant’s claim 1 also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither BIALER, WU, nor AIZAWA anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the limitations as cited in claim 1, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “a radar system comprising: a plurality of transmitting antennas; a plurality of receiving antennas; an azimuth estimation unit configured to estimate an azimuth of a target based on a first received signal received by a virtual array, wherein the virtual array comprises the plurality of transmitting antennas and the plurality of receiving antennas; a restoration unit configured to calculate a second received signal from a mode matrix and an estimated power of the first received signal in the azimuth estimated by the azimuth estimation unit, assuming that a transmitting azimuth of the plurality of transmitting antennas is the same as an arrival azimuth of the first received signal, wherein the second received signal corresponds to a signal restored from the first received signal; an error calculation unit configured to calculate errors from the first received signal and the second received signal, and a false azimuth determination unit that determines that the azimuth estimated by the azimuth estimation unit is a false azimuth in response to the errors being calculated by the error calculation unit are larger than a set determination threshold” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly rejected in claim 6.
Claims 2-5 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams et al. (US 4,806,936 A) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of intersecting bearing lines forming triangles representing both true targets and false targets. The false target triangles are separated from the true target triangles by analyzing the size and position of each triangle. Bearing data defining the triangles is first ordered and then sequentially examined in a manner such that a first group of false targets is eliminated from consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 7, 2026