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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of KR10-2023-0054264 filed 4/25/2023 and KR10-2023-0107098 filed 8/16/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. An electronic device comprising:
an antenna configured to receive an orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) signal reflected from a target vehicle; and
processing circuitry configured to estimate a first state vector and a first covariance matrix based on initial state information, the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection,
calculate a Kalman gain matrix based on the first state vector and the first covariance matrix,
calculate a correction factor based on a statistical characteristic of a discrete observation vector; and
update the first state vector and the first covariance matrix based on the correction factor to obtain a second state vector and a second covariance matrix;
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites an apparatus including at least one structure. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of estimate a first state vector and a first covariance matrix based on initial state information, the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection, calculate a Kalman gain matrix based on the first state vector and the first covariance matrix, calculate a correction factor based on a statistical characteristic of a discrete observation vector; and update the first state vector and the first covariance matrix based on the correction factor to obtain a second state vector and a second covariance matrix.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that an antenna is receiving signal and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine updating state vector and covariance matrix.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of an antenna configured to receive an orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) signal reflected from a target vehicle; and processing circuitry configured.
The receiving and processing of reflected signal recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “antenna configured to receive” and “processing circuity configured to estimate, calculate update” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8
Claim 8. An operating method of an electronic device, the operating method comprising:
estimating a first state vector and a first covariance matrix based on initial state information, the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection;
calculating a Kalman gain matrix based on the first state vector and the first covariance matrix;
calculating a correction factor based on a statistical characteristic of a discrete observation vector; and
updating the first state vector and the first covariance based on the correction factor to obtain a second state vector and a second covariance matrix.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of estimating a first state vector and a first covariance matrix based on initial state information; calculating a Kalman gain matrix based on the first state vector and the first covariance matrix; calculating a correction factor based on a statistical characteristic of a discrete observation vector; updating the first state vector and the first covariance based on the correction factor to obtain a second state vector and a second covariance matrix.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that receiving information from vehicle via a wireless connection and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to calculate and update mathematical functions. The mere nominal recitation of “the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection;
The receiving information is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a wireless connection” of the vehicle merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components. The data processing system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 15
Claim 15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform an operating method, the operating method comprising:
estimating a first state vector and a first covariance matrix based on initial state information, the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection;
calculating a Kalman gain matrix based on the first state vector and the first covariance matrix;
calculating a correction factor based on a statistical characteristic of a discrete observation vector; and
updating the first state vector and the first covariance based on the correction factor to obtain a second state vector and a second covariance matrix.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of estimating a first state vector and a first covariance matrix based on initial state information; calculating a Kalman gain matrix based on the first state vector and the first covariance matrix; calculating a correction factor based on a statistical characteristic of a discrete observation vector; updating the first state vector and the first covariance based on the correction factor to obtain a second state vector and a second covariance matrix.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “executed by at least one processor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of “executed by at least one processor,” the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that information is being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine a centerline distance from a rotatable coupler to a wheel assembly. The mere nominal recitation of “executed by at least one processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection;
The receiving an information is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a wireless connection” of the vehicle merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components. The data processing system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lipka et al. (US 2021/0389411 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates “an electronic device (paragraph 20: a radio device or transmission device that irradiates a corresponding transmission signal) comprising:
an antenna configured to receive an orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) signal reflected from a target vehicle (paragraph 100: The measurement of the phases at different frequencies can be applied to a plurality of already existing systems. They include all multi-carrier methods such as orthogonal division multiplexing (OFDM), discrete multitone (DMT), multi-continuous wave (multi CW), and frequency shift keying (FSK) or minimum shift keying (MSK) systems in which individual CW signals are transmitted at different frequencies. The information of the channel estimate can already be used for localization here in existing infrastructure such as communication systems. The phases of different frequencies and at different antennas of the channel estimate that has already taken place can thus e.g. be used in massive MIMO systems to localize cellular radio subscribers); and
processing circuitry (paragraph 1: the wave field emanating from the object is received by a number N receivers; paragraph 4: the wave-based measurement instrument can, however, as is generally known in the professional world, be provided with any desired device that enables the reception of the wave (e.g. an antenna with electromagnetic waves) configured to estimate a first state vector and a first covariance matrix based on initial state information (paragraph 115: very possible combination is now preferably formed, whereby, in accordance with the Gaussian sum formula, a number of (N.Math.(N−1)/2) phase differences (
PNG
media_image1.png
22
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
22
110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
results per radar if it has N reception antennas; said phase differences are combined for all U radars to form a measurement vector
PNG
media_image3.png
394
92
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; paragraph 132: a measure for how much the predict and the measurement are respectively trusted
PNG
media_image4.png
24
236
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where R(k): covariance matrix for the noise that is applied to the measurement values),
the initial state information being received from a target vehicle via a wireless connection (paragraph 1: a locating method for localizing at least one object using wave-based signals in which a wave field emanates from the object to be localized and the wave field emanating from the object is received by a number N receivers…the wave field can both be emitted from the object itself and can be irradiated by an external source and reflect its wave; paragraph 67: a radio receiver having N antennas, but can be easily expanded to systems having a plurality of radars, with each radio receiver being able to have any desired number of antennas. The object now as before transmits a signal that is received with the aid of the N antennas so that now N mutually coherent received signals are present in the radar measurement system; paragraph 155-159: application areas…vehicle, aircraft, ship tracking),
calculate a Kalman gain matrix based on the first state vector and the first covariance matrix (paragraph 132 -134: The so-called Kalman gain K is subsequently calculated that is a measure for how much the predict and the measurement are respectively trusted
PNG
media_image4.png
24
236
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, where R(k): covariance matrix for the noise that is applied to the measurement values; paragraph 29: a so-called Kalman gain that is a measure of how much the pre-estimate and the measurement is respectively trusted can be calculated for every linear combination of the hypothetical and/or measured phase values…the comparison of measured values and state values of the pre-estimate then takes place, with the pre-estimated position, for example, being converted into the corresponding hypothetical phase values for this purpose and with the differences for all the possible linear combinations per receiver, i.e. each antenna combination, being formed analogously to the measurement vector…the pre-estimate of the position that has taken place and optionally the covariance matrix is corrected with the aid of the measured phase values and optionally while considering the Kalman gain to obtain the new position of the object on this basis)
calculate a correction factor based on a statistical characteristic of a discrete observation vector, and update the first state vector and the first covariance matrix based on the correction factor to obtain a second state vector and a second covariance matrix (paragraph 26: a suitable penalty function is used for the comparison of the linear combinations to minimize the sum of the resulting differences, in particular for every single comparison of linear combinations. This is done by recursive estimators/filters…in accordance with the recursive procedure, a start is made from the last known point of the object to be detected and the current position is determined by recursive statistical or filter processes and with the aid of the compared phase values; paragraph 135: the comparison is now made of measurement and state after the predict step…the pre-estimated position is converted into phase values by
PNG
media_image5.png
22
54
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
26
62
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and, analog to the measurement vector, the differences are formed for all the (N.Math.(N−1)/2) possible antenna combinations per station and are combined in a vector for all three radars analog to the measured phase differences
PNG
media_image7.png
376
154
media_image7.png
Greyscale
; paragraphs 136-143: predict of state and covariance matrix is now corrected (“update”) with the aid of the measurement values and in dependence on the Kalman gain to obtain the new position x(k):
PNG
media_image8.png
24
278
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
20
142
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, where z(k):measurement vector,
PNG
media_image10.png
22
64
media_image10.png
Greyscale
vector with calculated phase values for the pre-estimated position,
PNG
media_image11.png
26
60
media_image11.png
Greyscale
the modulo operation in this case maps the phases to the space [−π,π] to enable a correction symmetrically in all directions, that is
PNG
media_image12.png
46
260
media_image12.png
Greyscale
; paragraph 142: his procedure is now repeated again and again, with the result (x(k), P(k)) from the last pass again forming the starting point for the calculation of the next point; paragraph 43: a start value has to be assumed for the first measurement point for which, as is known, there is no precursor. This start value can be selected randomly, for example. If an assumed start value does not result in a stable adjustment of the filter, the procedure can be repeated with one or more different start values).”
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates the electronic device of claim 1. Lipka et al. (‘411) further anticipates “the correction factor includes a state correction factor and a covariance correction factor (paragraph 26: a suitable penalty function is used for the comparison of the linear combinations to minimize the sum of the resulting differences, in particular for every single comparison of linear combinations. This is done by recursive estimators/filters…in accordance with the recursive procedure, a start is made from the last known point of the object to be detected and the current position is determined by recursive statistical or filter processes and with the aid of the compared phase values; paragraph 135: the comparison is now made of measurement and state after the predict step…the pre-estimated position is converted into phase values by
PNG
media_image5.png
22
54
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
26
62
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and, analog to the measurement vector, the differences are formed for all the (N.Math.(N−1)/2) possible antenna combinations per station and are combined in a vector for all three radars analog to the measured phase differences
PNG
media_image7.png
376
154
media_image7.png
Greyscale
); and
the processing circuitry is configured to: update the first state vector based on the state correction factor to obtain the second state vector, and update the first covariance matrix based on the covariance correction factor to obtain the second covariance matrix (paragraphs 136-143: the predict of state and covariance matrix is now corrected (“update”) with the aid of the measurement values and in dependence on the Kalman gain to obtain the new position x(k):
PNG
media_image8.png
24
278
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
20
142
media_image9.png
Greyscale
, where z(k):measurement vector,
PNG
media_image10.png
22
64
media_image10.png
Greyscale
vector with calculated phase values for the pre-estimated position,
PNG
media_image11.png
26
60
media_image11.png
Greyscale
the modulo operation in this case maps the phases to the space [−π,π] to enable a correction symmetrically in all directions, that is
PNG
media_image12.png
46
260
media_image12.png
Greyscale
; paragraph 142: his procedure is now repeated again and again, with the result (x(k), P(k)) from the last pass again forming the starting point for the calculation of the next point).”
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates the electronic device of claim 1. Lipka et al. (‘411) further anticipates “the antenna is configured to broadcast an OFDM-based radar signal to the target vehicle, the OFDM signal being based on the OFDM-based radar signal (paragraph 100: The measurement of the phases at different frequencies can be applied to a plurality of already existing systems. They include all multi-carrier methods such as orthogonal division multiplexing (OFDM), discrete multitone (DMT), multi-continuous wave (multi CW), and frequency shift keying (FSK) or minimum shift keying (MSK) systems in which individual CW signals are transmitted at different frequencies. The information of the channel estimate can already be used for localization here in existing infrastructure such as communication systems. The phases of different frequencies and at different antennas of the channel estimate that has already taken place can thus e.g. be used in massive MIMO systems to localize cellular radio subscribers).”
Regarding independent claim 8, which is a corresponding method claim of independent device claim 1, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 2, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 6, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 6.
Regarding independent claim 15, which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of independent device claim 1, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on independent claim 15, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of device claim 2, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, which is dependent on independent claim 15, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of device claim 6, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 6.
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.
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.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipka et al. (US 2021/0389411 A1), and further in view of Rezazadehreyhani et al. (US 2020/0186277 A1).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on independent claim 2, Lipka et al. (‘411) discloses the electronic device of claim 2. Lipka et al. (‘411) does not explicitly disclose “the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the correction factor including: transforming a conditional posterior probability density function into a normal distribution at a first discrete time; and determining the state correction factor and the covariance correction factor based on a mean vector of the normal distribution, and a covariance of the normal distribution.”
Rezazadehreyhani et al. (‘277) relates to signal detection and signal processing. Rezazadehreyhani et al. (‘277) teaches “the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the correction factor including: transforming a conditional posterior probability density function into a normal distribution at a first discrete time; and determining the state correction factor and the covariance correction factor based on a mean vector of the normal distribution, and a covariance of the normal distribution (paragraph 59: with reference to the channel model y=Hs+n, channel state information may include information about, or estimates of, the channel matrix H, as well as statistical information about the noise vector n, such as a channel noise variance σ.sub.n.sup.2…the channel matrix H may represent properties of the channel 108 that are at least temporarily consistent, such as attenuation and delay, and the statistical information of the noise vector n may represent inconsistent or randomly-varying noise; paragraph 67: a multivariate random vector to be added to a signal estimate ŝ from a deterministic linear detector, to produce a stochastic signal estimate s′ may be shaped such that after pre-multiplication by H it results in a vector with the same statistical characteristics as the noise vector n… stochastic signal estimates may be generated by sampling random vectors from a multivariate Gaussian distribution with a mean and a covariance matrix, where the mean is based on a signal estimate ŝ from a deterministic linear detector or previous estimate and the covariance matrix compensates or partially compensates for the noise-shaping effects of the channel matrix H; paragraph 94: modifications that minimize the error vector v=ŝ−s result in signal estimates closer to s…a distribution of samples of s, although deterministically based on input data, may appear to have been sampled from a multivariate probability distribution due to various transformations of the input data prior to transmission…with the transmitted signal vector s interpreted as a random variable, the error vector v=ŝ−s is also a random variable, and minimizing or reducing the error vector v may…accomplished by modifying the signal estimates by the addition of randomly generated noise, where the randomly generated noise has statistics (e.g., a mean and/or covariance matrix) similar to or based on the statistics for the error vector v; paragraph 95: Modeling or interpreting n and s as independent random vectors with covariance matrices C, one may find the covariance matrix of v; paragraph 113: W is an estimator matrix based on channel state information, n′ is a random vector representing generated noise (e.g., sampled or generated from a multivariate normal distribution with independent components, zero mean, and unit variance), and where D is a noise shaping matrix…a stochastic linear detector 204 can solve for a single sampling center (e.g., sampling estimate ŝ) and may generate multiple shaped noise samples v′=Dn′ to be used in generating the stochastic signal estimates s′; paragraph 141: may obtain or generate prior information about the transmitted signal vector s…prior information may include statistics for the transmitted signal vector s, such as a mean or covariance matrix; paragraph 144: any a priori information about s may be used to calculate the mean of s, denoted by s, and its covariance matrix
PNG
media_image13.png
26
132
media_image13.png
Greyscale
…with this information and assuming that the random vectors s and n are uncorrelated, one will find that the vector
PNG
media_image14.png
16
50
media_image14.png
Greyscale
may be treated as a random vector with the mean of
PNG
media_image15.png
28
226
media_image15.png
Greyscale
and a respective covariance matrix).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Lipka et al. (‘411) with the teaching of Rezazadehreyhani et al. (‘277) for more accurate signal detection (Rezazadehreyhani et al. (‘277) – paragraph 7). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lipka et al. (‘411)) and Rezazadehreyhani et al. (‘277)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, correction signal processing using covariance matrix, probability density function, mean vector.
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 9, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 3, Lipka et al. (‘411/Rezazadehreyhani et al. (‘277)) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on claim 16, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of device claim 3, Lipka et al. (‘411)/Rezazadehreyhani et al. (‘277) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 3.
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipka et al. (US 2021/0389411 A1), and further in view of Ikram et al. (US 2016/0103213 A1).
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lipka et al. (‘411) discloses the electronic device of claim 1. Lipka et al. (‘411) does not explicitly disclose “the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the Kalman gain matrix based on the first covariance matrix and a Jacobian matrix, the Jacobian matrix being a matrix of partial derivatives of a non-linear transformation of a first state vector.”
Ikram et al. (‘213) relates to tracking objects in radar system. Ikram et al. (‘213) teaches “the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the Kalman gain matrix based on the first covariance matrix and a Jacobian matrix, the Jacobian matrix being a matrix of partial derivatives of a non-linear transformation of a first state vector (paragraph 28: the measurement vector u(n), i.e., the measurements of the spherical coordinates and rate range of an object at time instant n, is given by
PNG
media_image16.png
22
114
media_image16.png
Greyscale
…the measurement vector u(n) is related to the process state vector s(n) as given by
PNG
media_image17.png
18
110
media_image17.png
Greyscale
where the non-linear function H(•) transforms the Cartesian coordinates of the object to the corresponding set of spherical coordinates, and the vector v(n) is a vector of measurement noise given by
PNG
media_image18.png
22
160
media_image18.png
Greyscale
where the covariance matrix R associated with the vector v(n) is given by
PNG
media_image19.png
24
134
media_image19.png
Greyscale
where diag[•] is a diagonal matrix formed from the elements of the argument. Given the previous defined process state vector s(n), the non-linear transformation H(s(n)) becomes
PNG
media_image20.png
158
214
media_image20.png
Greyscale
in which the time index (n) is not shown for the sake of brevity; paragraph 29: To retain the diagonal structure of the measurement covariance matrix R, input measurements are in spherical coordinates and the object tracking filter dynamically estimates the state vector s(n). The non-linear relations between u(n) and s(n) is simplified by retaining just the first term in the Taylor series expansion of H(s(n)), i.e.,
PNG
media_image21.png
22
242
media_image21.png
Greyscale
where J.sub.H(•) is the Jacobian given by
PNG
media_image22.png
186
362
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
196
384
media_image23.png
Greyscale
in which the time index (n) is not shown for the sake of brevity).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Lipka et al. (‘411) with the teaching of Ikram et al. (‘213) for more accurate signal detection (Ikram et al. (‘213) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lipka et al. (‘411) and Ikram et al. (‘213)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, correction signal processing using covariance matrix and tracking vector.
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lipka et al. (‘411)/ discloses the electronic device of claim 1. Lipka et al. (‘411) does not explicitly disclose “the initial state information includes a position of the target vehicle and a relative velocity of the target vehicle.”
Ikram et al. (‘213) relates to tracking objects in radar system. Ikram et al. (‘213) teaches “the initial state information includes a position of the target vehicle and a relative velocity of the target vehicle (paragraph 6: Current automotive radar systems are capable of detecting objects and obstacles around a vehicle, the position of any detected objects and obstacles relative to the vehicle, and the velocity of any detected objects and obstacles relative to the vehicle).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Lipka et al. (‘411) with the teaching of Ikram et al. (‘213) for more accurate signal detection (Ikram et al. (‘213) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lipka et al. (‘411) and Ikram et al. (‘213)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, correction signal processing using covariance matrix and tracking vector.
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 4, Lipka et al. (‘411)/Ikram et al. (‘213) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 7, Lipka et al. (‘411)/Ikram et al. (‘213) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on independent claim 15, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of device claim 4, Lipka et al. (‘411) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 4.
Claim 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipka et al. (US 2021/0389411 A1), and further in view of Altintas et al. (US 10,897,336 B2).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lipka et al. (‘411) discloses the electronic device of claim 1. Lipka et al. (‘411) does not explicitly disclose “the electronic device corresponds to a road side unit (RSU), and the wireless connection corresponds to a feedback link.”
Altintas et al. (‘336) relates to applying ntegrated radar and communication applications in vehicles. Altintas et al. (‘336) teaches “the electronic device corresponds to a road side unit (RSU) (column 13 lines 20-29: the OFDM-enabled endpoint 151 is a connected vehicle, a roadside unit (RSU), an edge server, a cloud server, or any other processor-based computing device that is operable to send and receive OFDM signals. In some embodiments, any combination of connected vehicles, RSUs, edge servers, and cloud servers, etc., may include instances of the OFDM system 197 so that the functionality of the OFDM system 197 is implemented in a distributed fashion among two or more endpoints connected to the network 105), and
the wireless connection corresponds to a feedback link (column 14 line 54- column 15 line 1: a computer program product including a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: construct a wireless signal based on a set of pilot subcarriers and a set of data subcarriers, where the set of pilot subcarriers is used for radar processing and channel estimation while the set of data subcarriers is used for transmitting data; transmit the wireless signal; listen for radar feedback associated with the wireless signal; determine pilot-subcarrier radar data from the radar feedback, where the pilot-subcarrier radar data describes a part of the radar feedback that is associated with the set of pilot subcarriers; and generate a radar processing result based on the pilot-subcarrier radar data to reduce a peak to side-lobe ratio of the radar processing result).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Lipka et al. (‘411) with the teaching of Altintas et al. (‘336) for more accurate signal detection (Altintas et al. (‘336) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lipka et al. (‘411) and Altintas et al. (‘336)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, applying Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) signals for radar and communication applications.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 5, Lipka et al. (‘411)/Altintas et al. (‘336) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on independent claim 15, and which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of device claim 5, Lipka et al. (‘411)/Altintas et al. (‘336) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 5.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomas et al. (US 2013/0279615 A1) describes methodology for enabling closed-loop transmission is analog covariance matrix or analog eigenvector feedback. In covariance feedback the MS measures the downlink channel response, computes a covariance matrix for the band of interest, and then feeds back the values of the covariance matrix in an analog fashion to the BS. For eigenvector feedback, the MS obtains a covariance matrix similar to that of covariance feedback but then computes the dominant eigenvector or eigenvectors of the covariance matrix and feeds back the eigenvector or eigenvectors in an analog fashion to the BS (paragraph 6); by applying a forgetting factor to the previous covariance matrix estimates in addition to differential feedback on the entries of the covariance matrix, the above-technique is very resistant to feedback errors while providing a high level of accuracy in the covariance matrix fed back to the base (paragraph 19).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648