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 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 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained in 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 because as explained in Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-54.
The method of claim 1, 13, and 20 is directed to the limitations “determine a harmonic spectrum of an intermediate frequency (IF) signal of a radar sensor; determine an undesired signal component of the IF signal caused by at least one of a crosstalk of the radar sensor or a near-range obstacle in a field of view of the radar sensor based on the harmonic spectrum; and determine a calibrated signal having a reduced contribution from the undesired signal component based on the undesired signal component and the IF signal” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 1, 13, and 20 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 2 and 14 is directed to the limitations “determining the calibrated signal comprises attenuating, subtracting or filtering the undesired signal component in the IF signal” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 2 and 14 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 3 and 15 is directed to the limitations “determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on a harmonic model of the IF signal” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 3 and 15 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 4 and 16 is directed to the limitations “determining the harmonic spectrum comprises partitioning the IF signal into a signal subspace and a noise subspace” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 4 and 16 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 5 and 17 is directed to the limitations “determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigen decomposition of an autocorrelation matrix of the IF signal or a singular value decomposition of a data matrix of the IF signal” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 5 and 17 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 6 is directed to the limitations “determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on a minimum-norm method, a minimum-norm root method, a multiple signal classification method, a multiple signal classification root method, an eigenvalue method, a rooted eigenvalue method, a Pisarenko harmonic decomposition method, a rooted Pisarenko harmonic decomposition method, or an estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance technique” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 7 is directed to the limitations “determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum of the IF signal based on a minimum-norm root method in a calibration mode” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 8 is directed to the limitations “determining whether at least one frame of the IF signal indicates a free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum, wherein determining the undesired signal component comprises determining the undesired signal component based on the free-space measurement” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 9 is directed to the limitations “determining whether the at least one frame indicates the free-space measurement comprises: determining one or more roots of a polynomial representing a noise subspace of the IF signal; and determining whether the root indicates the free-space measurement” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 10 is directed to the limitations “determining whether the one or more roots indicate the free-space measurement comprises determining whether at least one of a complex value, a real value or an imaginary value of the one or more roots is within a predefined value range” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 11 is directed to the limitations “determining a harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal; determining whether the calibrated signal comprises a further free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
With respect to claim 11, since updating the determined undesired signal component based on the further free-space measurement is contingent on determining that the calibrated signal comprises the further free-space measurement this feature does not need to be taught by the prior art to read on the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation. (SEE MPEP 2111.04).
The method of claim 12 is directed to the limitations “determining at least one near-range target in the field of view of the radar sensor based on the calibrated signal” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “harmonic spectrum” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2:
Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether the claims recite additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53-55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
In addition to reciting the above-noted abstract ideas, the issue is whether the claims as a whole including various additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. In other words, do the claims as a whole produce any meaningful limits, i.e. improvement in technology?
“a processor and memory with instructions” (claim 13)
“processing circuitry” (claim 20)
The additional limitations are directed data gathering and data processing and therefore, None of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claim invention. Rather, the additional limitations are directed data gathering and data processing which is an extra-solution activity.
STEP 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, the issue is whether the claims adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The issue is whether the claims as a whole including the additional limitations, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. In other words, the issue is whether the additional elements in combination (as well as individually) amount to an inventive concept.
Again, the additional limitations are directed to mere data gathering and data processing which is “well-understood, routine, and conventional’ activity in the field. Thus, the additional limitations alone or in combination do not amount to an inventive concept.
Overall all the claims are directed to a three dimensional deformation field modeling, which is in and of itself an abstract idea because said modeling is a mental process and perhaps data manipulation thus possibly extra-solution activity. Again, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As such, the ordered combination of features is directed solely to abstract ideas or extra-solution activity as discussed supra.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veyrac et al (US 20240027578) in view of Yee et al (US 7817977).
Regarding claim 1, 13, and 20, Veyrac teaches a method, comprising: determining a harmonic spectrum of an intermediate frequency (IF) signal of a radar sensor (fig 3b and para 71); determining an undesired signal component of the IF signal caused by at least one of a crosstalk of the radar sensor or a near-range obstacle in a field of view of the radar sensor based on the harmonic spectrum (para 71, “the modulation and therefore have a power spectral density that is also diluted over their modulation frequency band (for example harmonic leakage N of the frequency f.sub.”).
Regarding claim 1, Veyrac does not teach determining a calibrated signal having a reduced contribution from the undesired signal component based on the undesired signal component and the IF signal. Yee teaches determining a calibrated signal having a reduced contribution from the undesired signal component based on the undesired signal component and the IF signal (abstract). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac to include determining a calibrated signal having a reduced contribution from the undesired signal component based on the undesired signal component and the IF signal because it would determine the signal that needs to be removed from the received signal to increase accuracy of processing.
Regarding claim 2 and 14, Veyrac teaches determining the calibrated signal comprises attenuating, subtracting or filtering the undesired signal component in the IF signal (para 73, “ produce one-off frequency interference, which may require specific filtering to comply with normative templates (in FIG. 3a, the harmonic leakage is above the emission template)”).
Regarding claim 3 and 15, Veyrac teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on a harmonic model of the IF signal (para 73, “produce one-off frequency interference, which may require specific filtering to comply with normative templates (in FIG. 3a, the harmonic leakage is above the emission template)”).
Regarding claim 18, Veyrac teaches the radar sensor, wherein the radar sensor is configured to emit a radio frequency signal into the field of view of the radar sensor (para 15 and abstract) and generate the IF signal based on a reflection of the radio frequency signal (para 70).
Regarding claim 19, Veyrac teaches control circuitry configured to control an operation of the electronic device based on the calibrated signal (para 12).
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veyrac in view of Yee as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Visweswaran et al (US 20200264272).
Regarding claim 4 and 16, Visweswaran teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises partitioning the IF signal into a signal subspace and a noise subspace (para 20, “This has the effect of removing the effect of leakage and phase noise at the intermediate frequency.”). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises partitioning the IF signal into a signal subspace and a noise subspace because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a received signal of Veyrac with the method to process a received signal of Visweswaran to yield a predictable signal processing device.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veyrac in view of Yee as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Cao et al (CN103760527A).
Regarding claim 5 and 17, Cao teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigen decomposition of an autocorrelation matrix of the IF signal or a singular value decomposition of a data matrix of the IF signal (para 48, “ the autocorrelation matrix Ry to eigen decomposition, obtaining noise sub space in step 6, using the noise sub space forming a MUSIC space spectral function”). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigen decomposition of an autocorrelation matrix of the IF signal or a singular value decomposition of a data matrix of the IF signal because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine a harmonic spectrum of Veyrac with the method to determine a harmonic spectrum of Kale to yield a predictable method to determine a harmonic of a spectrum.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veyrac in view of Yee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sapohnykov et al (US 20180098152).
Regarding claim 6, Sapohnykov teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigenvalue method rotational invariance technique (para 54). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum based on an eigenvalue method rotational invariance technique because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a received signal to determine the harmonic spectrum of Veyrac with the method to process a received signal to determine the harmonic spectrum of Sapohnykov to yield a predictable signal processing device.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veyrac in view of Yee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US 20200191939).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum of the IF signal based on a minimum-norm root method in a calibration mode (para 98). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee to include determining the harmonic spectrum comprises determining the harmonic spectrum of the IF signal based on a minimum-norm root method in a calibration mode because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a received signal to determine the harmonic spectrum of Veyrac with the method to process a received signal to determine the harmonic spectrum of Wu to yield a predictable signal processing device.
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches determining whether at least one frame of the IF signal indicates a free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum, wherein determining the undesired signal component comprises determining the undesired signal component based on the free-space measurement (para 38, “It is noted that at any given range gate output of FTMF 118, if a target is present, a phase rotation corresponding to the radial velocity of the reflecting target will be present in the filter's outputs. Hence, the spectral domain information observed from multiple PRIs”). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee to include determining whether at least one frame of the IF signal indicates a free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum, wherein determining the undesired signal component comprises determining the undesired signal component based on the free-space measurement because it would determine the signal that needs to be removed from the received signal to increase accuracy of processing.
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches determining a harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal; determining whether the calibrated signal comprises a further free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal (para 38, “It is noted that at any given range gate output of FTMF 118, if a target is present, a phase rotation corresponding to the radial velocity of the reflecting target will be present in the filter's outputs. Hence, the spectral domain information observed from multiple PRIs”). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee to include determining a harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal; determining whether the calibrated signal comprises a further free-space measurement based on the harmonic spectrum of the calibrated signal because it would determine the signal that needs to be removed from the received signal to increase accuracy of processing.
With respect to claim 11, since updating the determined undesired signal component based on the further free-space measurement is contingent on determining that the calibrated signal comprises the further free-space measurement this feature does not need to be taught by the prior art to read on the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation. (SEE MPEP 2111.04)
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veyrac in view of Yee in view of Wu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chen et al (WO 2017156492).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches determining whether the at least one frame indicates the free-space measurement comprises: determining one or more roots of a polynomial representing a noise subspace of the IF signal; and determining whether the root indicates the free-space measurement (para 44, “generating a polynomial equation based on the obtained matrix; and selecting one or more complex roots of the polynomial equation, wherein the one or more breathing rates of one or more living beings are determined based on information related to at least one of angle and phase of the one or more complex roots”). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee in view of Wu to include determining whether the at least one frame indicates the free-space measurement comprises: determining one or more roots of a polynomial representing a noise subspace of the IF signal; and determining whether the root indicates the free-space measurement because it is merely a one of multiple implementation of a radar device of Veyrac in the radar system of Chen to yield a predictable radar system.
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches determining whether the one or more roots indicate the free-space measurement comprises determining whether at least one of a complex value, a real value or an imaginary value of the one or more roots is within a predefined value range (para 44, “generating a polynomial equation based on the obtained matrix; and selecting one or more complex roots of the polynomial equation, wherein the one or more breathing rates of one or more living beings are determined based on information related to at least one of angle and phase of the one or more complex roots”). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee in view of Wu to include determining whether the one or more roots indicate the free-space measurement comprises determining whether at least one of a complex value, a real value or an imaginary value of the one or more roots is within a predefined value range because it is merely a one of multiple implementation of a radar device of Veyrac in the radar system of Chen to yield a predictable radar system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veyrac in view of Yee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US 20220003837).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches determining at least one near-range target in the field of view of the radar sensor based on the calibrated signal (fig 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to modify Veyrac in view of Yee to include determining at least one near-range target in the field of view of the radar sensor based on the calibrated signal because it is expected that the radar device of Veyrac would be used to detect object in a field of view.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights