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 .
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:
“an analog-to-digital subsystem configured to” in claim 1.
“a control subsystem configured to” in claims 1, 6-8, 18-21, 24.
“a digital-to-analog subsystem configured to” in claim 15
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.
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 1-25 are 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 analog output of the one or more subarrays”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. No output from the subarrays is recited, much less an analog output”
Claims 4 and 6 recite operational cycles of radar. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. While, generally, radars have a duty cycle of transmit and receive operations, there is no active recitation of system scheduling/timing/operation where signals are transmitted, then received, then processed. The only seeming “operational cycle” claimed is the performance of plural processing algorithms, and in this case there is no recurring cycle being claimed.
For the purpose of Examination, Examiner will interpret the claim to mean subsequent radar duty cycles of transmitting, receiving, and processing.
Claim 14 recites that the data “can be processed”. The passive recitation of the ability to process the data but not necessarily the actual processing being carried out renders the claim indefinite.
A Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of “can be processed” would merely be a generic computer processor capable of processing data.
Claim 16 recites “the digital-to-analog subsystem”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 1 from which claim 16 depends recites instead “an analog to digital subsystem”.
Claim 16 recites “the digital-to-analog subsystem is a modular subsystem that can be replaced by an alternative digital-to-analog subsystem.” The use of “can” makes it impossible to ascertain the scope of the claim, and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitations following “can” are required limitations for the invention.
A Broadest Reasonable interpretation of this limitation would merely be the ability to swap any generic DAC circuit with another DAC circuit.
Claim 16 recites “an alternative digital to analog subsystem”. It is impossible to ascertain the scope of an “alternative” system.
A Broadest Reasonable interpretation of this limitation would merely be any generic DAC circuit.
Claim 13 and 17 recites “a wide portion of the RF spectrum.” It is impossible to ascertain the scope of this limitation. No criteria are set forth which would determine what “a wide portion of the RF spectrum” comprised.
A Broadest Reasonable interpretation of this limitation would merely be any bandwidth in the RF spectrum.
Claim 18 recites “antenna weights”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. While claim 1 does recite an electronically steered array, there is no recitation of antenna weighting.
Additional claims are rejected at least for their dependence upon a rejected base claim.
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 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only the statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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) 1-11, 13-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellum (US 2018/0095161) in view of Milligan (US 2012/0032833).
Claim 1: Kellum discloses a multi-purpose radar system comprising: one or more subarrays of electronically steered transmit/receive elements (para 0047)
a digital signal processing subsystem comprising a plurality of digital processing elements and a memory subsystem comprising one or more memories (para 0033-0038)
a control subsystem configured to direct the digital signal processing subsystem to perform a plurality of different processing algorithms on the data stored in the memory subsystem (para 0039-0043)
Kellum does not explicitly disclose an analog-to-digital subsystem configured to receive the analog output of the one or more subarrays and to store a digital representation of the analog output into the memory subsystem, but does disclose an implicit recitation of analog reception and digital processing (para 0047 describing receiving an analog radar signal, and para 0053 describing digital down-conversion of the radar and communications signals for digital processing)
In the same field of endeavor, Milligan discloses a multi-purpose radar system for executing radar and communications application processing resource management (fig 3 para 0040-0045) comprising a digital signal processing subsystem, an analog-to-digital conversion subsystem, and a memory subsystem for storing output from the analog-to-digital subsystem (para 0035-0038).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Milligan, in order to process radar and communication signals in a conventional manner with digital signal processors.
Claim 2: Kellum discloses the multi-purpose radar system is configured to simultaneously perform multiple different applications having different respective processing algorithms, each of the multiple different applications correspond to a different type of application (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 3: Kellum discloses simultaneously performing multiple different applications comprises directing the digital signal processing subsystem to perform multiple different processing algorithms on the same set of data stored in the memory subsystem (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 4: Kellum discloses simultaneously performing multiple different applications comprises directing the digital signal processing subsystem to perform multiple different processing algorithms over consecutive operational cycles of the radar (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 5: Kellum discloses simultaneously performing multiple different applications comprises cycling between two or more processing algorithms over consecutive operational cycles of the radar (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 6: Kellum discloses the control subsystem is configured to dynamically select a next processing algorithm for a next application on each operational cycle (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 7: Kellum discloses the control subsystem is configured to select a next processing algorithm while digital signal processing subsystem is processing data for a current processing algorithm (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications).
Claim 8: Kellum discloses the control system is configured to perform a real-time resource allocation process to determine which resources to allocate to each of the multiple different application types (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 9: Kellum discloses performing the resource allocation process comprises determining an amount of processing time to allocate to each of the multiple different application types (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 10: Kellum discloses performing the resource allocation process comprises allocating no processing resources to one of the application types (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications i.e. if no radar or communication signal is required the scheduler would not allocate resources to such an application)
Claim 11: Kellum discloses performing the resource allocation process comprises reducing processing resources for one of the applications over one or more operational cycles (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications i.e. if no radar or communication signal is required the scheduler would not allocate resources to such an application)
Claim 13: Kellum discloses the memory subsystem is configured to store an entire range window of data over a wide portion of RF spectrum (para 0040, 0046, 0047)
Claim 14: Kellum discloses the range window stored by the memory subsystem is over 100 km of range and can be processed at full bandwidth of the multi-purpose radar system (para 0008, 0023, 0040, 0046, 0047 disclosing the use of the system in EW, comms, IFF, UAV and other deployments which frequently measure targets at or beyond 100km range)
Claim 15: Kellum discloses a digital-to-analog subsystem that is configured to generate arbitrary waveforms (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications as well as waveform generation for multiple such applications and digital to analog conversion)
Claim 16: Kellum discloses the digital-to-analog subsystem is a modular subsystem that can be replaced by an alternative digital-to-analog subsystem (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications as well as waveform generation for multiple such applications and digital to analog conversion)
Claim 17: Kellum discloses the one or more subarrays of electronically steered transmit/receive elements are configured to capture a wide portion of the RF spectrum (para 0040, 0046, 0047)
Claim 18: Kellum discloses the control subsystem is configured to: determine a malfunction of the multi-purpose radar system; and in response to determining the malfunction, reconfigure antenna weights (para 0033-0046, and 0047)
Claim 19: Kellum discloses the control subsystem is configured to select a different processing algorithm for a particular application type (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 20: Milligan discloses the control subsystem is configured to: detect electromagnetic interference in a receive signal of the analog-to-digital subsystem; and in response to detecting electromagnetic interference, select a different waveform for transmit by the one or more subarrays (para 0009, 0032, 0045)
It would have been obvious to modify the invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Milligan, in order to avoid interference between transmit and receive signals.
Claim 21: Milligan discloses the control subsystem is configured to: detect electromagnetic interference in a receive signal of the analog-to-digital subsystem; and in response to detecting electromagnetic interference, select a different resource allocation for a subsystem of the multi-purpose radar system. (para 0009, 0032, 0045)
It would have been obvious to modify the invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Milligan, in order to avoid interference between transmit and receive signals.
Claim 22: Kellum discloses selecting a different processing algorithm comprises switching from a searching or tracking algorithm to an algorithm for communicating data wirelessly (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications)
Claim 23: Kellum discloses the multi-purpose radar system is configured to simultaneously perform two or more of the following applications: aircraft detection, aircraft tracking, communications, weather monitoring, or interceptor guidance (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications, para 0008, 0023, 0040, 0046, 0047 disclosing the use of the system in EW, comms, IFF, UAV and other deployments)
Claim 24: Kellum discloses the control subsystem is configured to integrate results of one or more processing algorithms with processing results received from one or more other multi-purpose radar systems to ensure time and phase alignment coherency (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications to operate synchronously)
Claim 25: Kellum discloses the multi-purpose radar system is configured to perform at least one type of application simultaneously (para 0033-0046 describing the resource scheduler and assignment of processing between radar and communications applications to operate simultaneously)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Kellum (US 2018/0095161).
Claim 26: Kellum discloses A method performed by a radar system in an environment, the method comprising:
obtaining, by an antenna array of the radar system, radio frequency detections from one or more objects in the environment (para 0047)
identifying, by a digital signal processing subsystem of the radar system, a first subset of the radio frequency (RF) detections for processing during a first period of time (para 0033-0046);
processing, during the first period of time and by the digital signal processing subsystem of the radar system, the first subset of radio frequency detections to identify objects from the one or more objects in the environment associated with a first application of the radar system (para 0033-0046);
while processing the first subset of radio frequency detections for the first application of the radar system during the first period of time, identifying a second subset of the radio frequency detections for processing during a second period of time, wherein the second subset of radio frequency detections are associated with a second application of the radar system (para 0033-0046);
processing, during the second period of time and by the digital signal processing subsystem of the radar system, the second subset of radio frequency detections to identify objects from the one or more objects in the environment associated with the second application of the radar system (para 0033-0046); and
generating radar data related to one or more identified objects from the one or more objects based on processing the first subset of radio frequency detections and the second subset of radio frequency detections (para 0033-0046);
Claim 27: Kellum discloses determining, from an ordered list of applications, a sequence of waveforms corresponding to a plurality of beams, wherein the ordered list of applications comprises at least one of (i) different instances of an identical application, or (ii) an instance of different applications; generating, from the sequence of waveforms, the plurality of beams for transmit by the antenna array of the radar system; obtaining, through the antenna array of the radar system, received signals associated with the transmitted plurality of beams; and processing, for each beam of the transmitted plurality of beams and according to the ordered list of applications, a subset of the received signals associated with the beam (para 0033-0047);
Claim 28: Kellum discloses identifying a subset of beams from the transmitted plurality of beams that share an identical application type; and providing detections associated with the subset of the received signals that share the identical application type (para 0033-0047);
Claim 29: Kellum discloses the ordered list of radar applications is based on data received from one or more interfaces of the radar system (para 0033-0047);
Claim 30: Kellum discloses generating the plurality of beams for transmit comprises steering the beams at one or more positions of an environment of the radar system based on the sequence of waveforms (para 0033-0047);
Claim 31: Kellum discloses One or more computer storage media encoded with instructions that are operable, when executed by data processing apparatus (para 037), to cause the data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, by an antenna array of the radar system, radio frequency detections from one or more objects in the environment (para 0047)
identifying, by a digital signal processing subsystem of the radar system, a first subset of the radio frequency detections for processing during a first period of time (para 0033-0047);
processing, during the first period of time and by the digital signal processing subsystem of the radar system, the first subset of radio frequency detections to identify objects from the one or more objects in the environment associated with a first application of the radar system (para 0033-0047);
while processing the first subset of radio frequency detections for the first application of the radar system during the first period of time, identifying a second subset of the radio frequency detections for processing during a second period of time, wherein the second subset of radio frequency detections are associated with a second application of the radar system (para 0033-0047);
processing, during the second period of time and by the digital signal processing subsystem of the radar system, the second subset of radio frequency detections to identify objects from the one or more objects in the environment associated with the second application of the radar system (para 0033-0047);; and
generating radar data related to one or more identified objects from the one or more objects based on processing the first subset of radio frequency detections and the second subset of radio frequency detections (para 0033-0047);
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellum (US 2018/0095161) in view of Milligan (US 2012/0032833) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Damnjanovic (US 2023/0314561).
Claim 12: Kellum in view of Milligan does not specifically discloses the plurality of digital processing elements are graphics processing units and the memory subsystem is one or more integrated memories of the graphics processing units.
In the same field of endeavor, Damnjanovic discloses a system for operating a radar device within a wireless network, wherein processing elements are graphics processing units and the memory subsystem is one or more integrated memories of the graphics processing units (para 0026)
It would have been obvious to modify the invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as GPU’s have a well-known benefit of being capable of simultaneous parallel processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose the state of the art in radar and communications shared circuitry including processing schemes for resource allocation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M BYTHROW whose telephone number is (571)270-1468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 830am-5pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648