DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of May 17, 2024 has been considered during examination.
The drawings of May 17, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Claim Interpretation
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 1-14 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.
In each of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 13, the uses of the word, “array” are indefinite and unclear in context as to whether they mean an antenna array or a numerical array (e.g., a matrix) or something else.
On line 2 of independent claim 1, the phrase, “receiving a return signal array from a pulsed radar” is unclear in context as to what is meant by “receiving” an “array” from a “radar.” Substantially the same remarks apply to the text on line 4 of independent claim 6.
On line 4 of independent claim 1, the claim language, “first filter that is different from and [sic] a second filter” is unclear in context in that it makes neither logic or grammatical sense. Substantially the same remarks apply to the corresponding text on lines 6-7 of independent claim 6.
The term “far” in each of claims 2, 7, and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “far” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Overall, dependent claim 4 is indefinite and unclear in that in the usual and ordinary sense of the word, “filter,” a filter could not be “generated” by “minimizing” a mathematical function. Substantially the same remarks apply to dependent claim 9.
Similarly, on line 3 of claim 5, on line 3 of claim 11, and, on line 6 of claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by generating a filter or by generating filters.
In each of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, and 14, each and every use of the word, “region” is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant in context. Is the word, “region” used in a spatial sense (i.e., a certain area or volume) or in a mathematical sense?
Each of dependent claims 3, 8, and 14 is overall indefinite and unclear in context as to how a “filter” or “filters” in the usual and ordinary sense of the term can have a “length”.
Each of dependent claims 3, 8, and 14 is overall indefinite and unclear in context as to how a “length” in the usual and ordinary sense of the word can be “greater” than a “region.” A “length” would be in one dimension, but, a “region” would be in two or more dimensions.
In each of dependent claims 4 and 9, the term, “sidelobe measure cost function” is indefinite and unclear in context as to what the “cost function” is being applied. In the usual and ordinary sense of “cost function,” the “cost function” is applied to something producing an ‘output” to obtain a measure of the mathematical “cost” of obtaining that “output.” In that there is no sidelobe measuring mentioned in claim 1 or in claim 6, “sidelobe measure cost function” is indefinite and unclear in context.
Throughout claims 1-14, the uses of the terms “filter” or filters” are indefinite and unclear in context in that in the usual and ordinary sense of these terms hardware is meant, but, in the context of the claims these terms seem to apply to apply to numerical concepts, such as, the use of “column” and “row” in claims 5, 10, and 11.
On line 2 of dependent claim 5, it is unclear in context what is meant by a “filter” per se “representing a radar pulse”? Is a matched filter meant? Substantially the same remarks apply to the text of line 3 of claim 10, line 2 of claim 11, and, claim 12.
Each of dependent claims 2-5 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
On line 2 of independent claim 11, the phrase, “receiving a full convolution filter” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether a “filter” is the usual and ordinary sense is being received, or, whether numbers are being received.
Each of dependent claims 7-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 6.
Each of dependent claims 12-14 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 11.
Rejections under 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of mathematical concepts of calculations without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “receiving a return signal array from a pulsed radar; and generating a filtered signal output by executing a convolution operation with the return signal array and a set of filters including a first filter that is different from and a second filter, and wherein the first filter is applied to the return signal array based on a first range cell index of the return signal array and the second filter is applied to the return signal array based on a second range cell index of the return signal array.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no use is made of the results of the calculations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the first method step is merely information gathering/receipt for the calculations, and, dependent claims 2-5 merely further describe the calculations of the judicial exception.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of mathematical concepts of calculations without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a processor; and a memory configured with instructions operable to: receive a return signal array from a pulsed radar; and generate a filtered signal output by executing a convolution operation with the return signal array and a set of filters including a first filter that is different from and a second filter, and wherein the first filter is applied to the return signal array based on a first range cell index of the return signal array and the second filter is applied to the return signal array based on a second range cell index of the return signal array.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no use is made of the results of the calculations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are merely general computer hardware (i.e., a processor and a memory), and, dependent claims 7-10 merely further describe the calculations of the judicial exception.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of mathematical concepts of calculations without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “receiving a full convolution filter AF representing a radar pulse; generating a modified convolution filter AMn by removing at least one column of full convolution filter AF representing a blind range signal and removing at least one row of a full convolution filter AF that corresponds to a portion of a main lobe; and generating a set of filters x, wherein xn=bpeakCn-1aHaCn-1aH, n is an index of the set of filters, a is a transmit pulse, and Cn = AMnHAMn..” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no use is made of the results of the calculations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the first method step is merely information gathering/receipt for the calculations, and, dependent claims 12-14 merely further describe the calculations of the judicial exception.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith (‘773) is of general interest for the context of paragraphs [47] and [48].
Collins (‘010) is of general interest for the plurality of channels output from item 17.
Moore et al (‘033) is of general interest for the passage at column 4, lines 35-39.
Chavez (‘478) is of general interest for the passage at column 1, lines 58-66.
Lewis (‘504), Lewis (‘646), Le Chevalier (‘905), Milkovich (‘281), and, Lewis et al (‘011) is of general interest for the treatment of blind speeds.
Urkowitz (‘706) is of general interest for the passages at column 14, lines 34-47 and at column 59, lines 24-45.
The remaining examiner-cited reference are of general interest for the disclosure related to pulse compression.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648