,3DETAILED 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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 102021123 942.7, filed on 09/16/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) which invoke 112(f) is/are:
Claim 1: “determining a radial velocity … by means of the received echo signals”; “determining a first direction variable… by means of the received echo signals”; “determining a second direction variable… by means of the first direction variable, the radial velocity and the traveling velocity”; and “determining at least one elevation variable of the object target by means of at least one of the direction variables”
Claim 9: “the at least one elevation variable and/or the azimuth of the object target is calculated by means of the first direction variable and the second direction variable”
Claim 10: “means for determining at least one elevation variable of object targets … with respect to an elevation reference plane”; “means for determining radial velocities of detected object targets”; “means for determining first direction variables”; “means for determining second direction variables”; and “means for determining at least one elevation variable of object targets”
Claim 11: “means for determining at least one elevation variable of object targets … with respect to an elevation reference plane”; “means for determining radial velocities of detected object targets”; “means for determining first direction variables”; “means for determining second direction variables”; and “means for determining at least one elevation variable of object targets”
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, 5, 6 and 9-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitations “determining a radial velocity … by means of the received echo signals”; “determining a first direction variable… by means of the received echo signals”; “determining a second direction variable… by means of the first direction variable, the radial velocity and the traveling velocity”; and “determining at least one elevation variable of the object target by means of at least one of the direction variables” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 1 calculates directional variables using the traveling velocity, radial velocity and measurement of an angle of arrival. The radial velocity and first direction variable/angle are determined by the radar system, (reference number 14, Fig. 1 and 3), other than the three-antenna (reference number 28, Fig. 3), the only other structure recited for the radar system is the control and evaluation device (reference number, Fig. 3), it is discussed on (Page 15 lines 8-18; Page 18) at a superficial level and primary in terms of the problem to be solved or results to be achieved rather than specific structure. and fails to disclose an algorithm or structure for performing the claimed specific functions of using a phase difference to calculate an angle or measure the target radial velocity. The specification recites velocity measuring system 34 (reference number 34, Fig. 1 and 3) for measuring the traveling velocity with no description, not even how it is measuring velocity - IMU, rotation sensor, gps, LTE? (Specification; Page 15 line 19 to Page 17 line 14). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what is being claimed. As best as examiner can tell, the claim limitations are a restatement of that which is already known to be true. The direction variables are angles. The applicant does not present alternative quantities for the direction variables in the claims or specification. Additionally, claims 3 and 8 take “the cosine of the first direction variable”. It is unclear what it would mean to take a cosine of a distance to the examiner. Further clarification is required.
Claim 6 requires “the two reference axes are specified so that they span a plane which extends parallel to or in the elevation reference plane”. The language is not clear in general and the specification is not found to clarify the meaning. Three reference axes are used in Fig. 2 and 4, spherical coordinates requires only two axes, but that would be in a plane orthogonal to the ground or elevation reference plane as understood by the Examiner. Clarification is required, with reference to the disclosure to clarify the intended limitation to be imposed on the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitations “the at least one elevation variable and/or the azimuth of the object target is calculated by means of the first direction variable and the second direction variable” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification proposes approaches to the calculate the angles theta and phi, it does not explicitly provide the algorithms (Page 19 last paragraph to Page 20). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Additionally, claim 9 recites the limitation "azimuth of the target object" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what the angle is with respect to based on the claim language.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the claim limitations “means for determining at least one elevation variable of object targets … with respect to an elevation reference plane”; “means for determining radial velocities of detected object targets”; “means for determining first direction variables”; “means for determining second direction variables”; and “means for determining at least one elevation variable of object targets” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claims 10 and 11 calculate directional variables using the traveling velocity, radial velocity and measurement of an angle of arrival. The radial velocity and first direction variable/angle are determined by the radar system, (reference number 14, Fig. 1 and 3), other than the three-antenna (reference number 28, Fig. 3), the only other structure recited for the radar system is the control and evaluation device (reference number, Fig. 3), it is discussed on (Page 15 lines 8-18; Page 18) at a superficial level and primary in terms of the problem to be solved or results to be achieved rather than specific structure. and fails to disclose an algorithm or structure for performing the claimed specific functions of using a phase difference to calculate an angle or measure the target radial velocity. The specification recites velocity measuring system 34 (reference number 34, Fig. 1 and 3) for measuring the traveling velocity with no description, not even how it is measuring velocity - IMU, rotation sensor, gps, LTE? (Specification; Page 15 line 19 to Page 17 line 14). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1, 6, 10 and 11 recite the limitation “elevation reference plane”, it is unclear and not readily understood what is meant by this limitation. The terms “[]”, “[]” are not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted the phrase “elevation reference plane” to mean “the ground”.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 also recites two different limitations for how the first and second direction variables are determined: one version with a reference plane and another with a reference axis. It is unclear if these are complementary or alternative limitations. Thus, it is unclear and not readily what is understood by “elevation reference plane” “a first/second direction variable, which characterizes the direction of the object target relative to a first/second reference area”, and “the first/second direction variable is determined relative to a first/second reference axis”. The terms “[]”, “[]” are not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As shown above, claim elements of 1 and 9-11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the disclosure not does not provide adequate structure for performing the function.
A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (MPEP 2181(IV)).
Claims 2-9 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recites a method, and devices for determining and calculating an elevation angle of an object using radar data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather the claims are generally lining the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a
fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 10 recites a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 recites a device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claims 1 (and its dependents), 10 and 11 recites a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality of mental process and mathematical concepts as defined at least by the claimed steps of:
The steps of “determining a traveling velocity of the radar system” may be performed by evaluating and grouping the data received which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The step of “determining a radial velocity” may be performed by calculating the data to achieve the results may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation.
The steps of “determining a first direction variable, which characterizes the direction of the object target relative to a first reference area fixed in relation to the radar system” and “determining a second direction variable, which characterizes the direction of the object target relative to a second reference area fixed in relation to the radar system” may be performed by defining a coordinate system or reference axis which are mathematical concepts.
The step of “determining at least one elevation variable of the object target by means of at least one of the direction variables” may be performed by calculating the data to achieve the results may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation.
Therefore, such steps of “determining” encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas or encompass processes involving “mathematical concepts”.
In addition, dependent claims 2-9 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process or mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 2, the process may be practically performed in the human mind using different evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 9, the calculations or definition of variables involve mathematical concepts.
Regarding claims 7-8, the steps of “fixing” may be performed by correcting the data evaluation which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 also falls within the “mental processes” or “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception 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 exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The only additional element of claims 1, 10 and 11 are “antennas, means for…, and a vehicle”. As such, such steps are insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, all claim elements recite the method as being performed by a means. The specification recites said means at a high level of generality, as noted in the 112 rejections above. The “means” are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Additionally, the totality of mathematical operations and mental processes are anchored in a specific application, the acts of information processing do not link to or result in affecting an additional system or result in any stated output.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
As stated above, claim 1-11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Additionally, the claims as a whole fail to direct or integrate the judicial exceptions sufficiently to amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bialer (US 20200393540).
Regarding claim 1, Bialer discloses a method for determining at least one elevation variable of an object target of an object, which is detected by a radar system of a vehicle, with respect to an elevation reference plane, the method comprising:
emitting radar signals and receiving echo signals of radar signals reflected at the object target using the radar system ([0024] In operation, the transmitter 42 of the radar system 40 sends out a radio frequency (RF) reference signal 48 that is reflected back at the autonomous vehicle 10 by one or more objects 50 in the field of view of the radar system 40 as one or more reflected echo signals 52.),
determining a traveling velocity of the radar system ([0030] The components v.sub.x, v.sub.y of the velocity vector 304 are determined by calculating the change between the first location and the second location divided by the time interval between the first time and the second time.),
determining a radial velocity of the at least one object target relative to the radar system using the radar system by means of the received echo signals ([0024] The one or more echo signals 52 can be used to determine various parameters of the one or more objects 50, such as a range of the object, Doppler frequency or relative radial velocity of the object, and azimuth, etc.),
determining a first direction variable, which characterizes the direction of the object target relative to a first reference area fixed in relation to the radar system, using the radar system by means of the received echo signals (Fig. 2; [0028] Phase measurements at the antenna elements 210a-210d determine an azimuth angle of the reflection point 202 with respect to the receiver array 44.),
determining a second direction variable, which characterizes the direction of the object target relative to a second reference area fixed in relation to the radar system, by means of the first direction variable, the radial velocity, and the traveling velocity ([0034] In box 804, the radar system or other processor determines Doppler frequency, range and azimuth angle from the echo signals. In box 806, velocity components v.sub.x and v.sub.y are determined from either the difference in the position of the reflection point over multiple frames, as discussed with respect to FIG. 3 or using multiple radars, as discussed with respect to FIG. 7. In box 808, the height or elevation of the reflection point 202 is determined using Eq. (5).) and
determining at least one elevation variable of the object target by means of at least one of the direction variables, wherein radar signals are emitted using at least one antenna of the radar system and echo signals are received using at least two antennas of the radar system ([0032] Eq. (5) therefore expresses elevation z in terms of parameters that can be determined by the radar system: range R, azimuth x, Doppler v.sub.r, and x-and y-velocity components (v.sub.x, v.sub.y). – Examiner’s note: Eq. 5 is for the elevation or height of the detected object.),
wherein the respective phase centers of the antennas are arranged along an imaginary antenna axis, which extends parallel to the elevation reference plane ([0023] The receiver array 44 can be in the form of an array of horizontally spaced antenna elements (i.e., spaced along the x-axis of the coordinate system 60 shown in FIG. 1)),
wherein the first direction variable is determined relative to a first reference axis fixed in relation to the radar system as the reference area ([0028] The receiver array 44 includes horizontally spaced antenna elements 210a, 210b, 210c and 210d aligned along the x-axis. A reflection point 202 indicating a location of an object 50, FIG. 1, is shown at a selected location within the grid 200. Phase measurements at the antenna elements 210a-210d determine an azimuth angle of the reflection point 202 with respect to the receiver array 44.) and the second direction variable is determined relative to a second reference axis fixed in relation to the radar system as the reference area ([0034] In box 808, the height or elevation of the reflection point 202 is determined using Eq. (5). In box 810, the coordinate of the reflection point can be determined from the results of box 808.).
Regarding claim 2, Bialer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bialer further discloses wherein the first direction variable is determined from phase shifts between echo signals of the same radar signal received using different antennas ([0028] Phase measurements at the antenna elements 210a-210d determine an azimuth angle of the reflection point 202 with respect to the receiver array 44.).
Regarding claim 3, Bialer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1 or 2, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bailer further discloses the second direction variable in the form of a second direction angle is calculated as the arc sine of the quotient of the radial velocity and the product of the traveling velocity and the cosine of a first direction variable in the form of a first direction angle ([0029-0032]; Fig. 3-6. Examiner’s note: The instant application and Bialer differ in choice of coordinate system. Bialer is using a cartesian coordinate system while the instant application is using a spherical coordinate system).
Regarding claim 6, Bialer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bialer further discloses wherein the two reference axes are specified so that they span a plane which extends parallel to or in the elevation reference plane ([0024] While it is desired to determine an elevation of the object 50, the antenna elements of the receiver array 44 are aligned along a direction (i.e., x-axis) that is perpendicular to the elevation direction (i.e., y-axis) and is therefore not ideal for determining elevation. Methods disclosed herein allow for the determination of the elevation parameter using an array of horizontally-spaced receiver elements.).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Bialer discloses a radar system of a vehicle, comprising;
at least one antenna for emitting radar signals, at least two antennas for receiving echo signals from radar signals reflected at object targets ([0023] The radar system 40 includes a transmitter 42 and a receiver array 44. The receiver array 44 can be in the form of an array of horizontally spaced antenna elements (i.e., spaced along the x-axis of the coordinate system 60 shown in FIG. 1)), and
means for determining at least one elevation variable of object targets of objects detected using the radar system, with respect to an elevation reference plane, wherein the means comprise:
means for determining radial velocities of detected object targets relative to the radar system by means of received echo signals ([0024] The one or more echo signals 52 can be used to determine various parameters of the one or more objects 50, such as a range of the object, Doppler frequency or relative radial velocity of the object, and azimuth, etc.),
means for determining first direction variables, which characterize directions of object targets relative to a first reference area fixed in relation to the radar system, by means of received echo signals (Fig. 2; [0028] Phase measurements at the antenna elements 210a-210d determine an azimuth angle of the reflection point 202 with respect to the receiver array 44.),
means for determining second direction variables, which characterize directions of object targets relative to a second reference area fixed in relation to the radar system, by means of first direction variables, radial velocities and a traveling velocity of the radar system ([0009] The processor is further configured to measure a range, Doppler and azimuth of the object from the at least one echo signal, determine a velocity vector of the object using the at least one echo signal, and determine the elevation from the range, Doppler, azimuth and velocity vector of the object.), and
means for determining at least one elevation variable of object targets by means of at least one of the direction variables ([0008] The processor is configured to determine a first uncertainty curve associated with an azimuth measurement related to the at least one echo signal, determine a second uncertainty curve associated with a Doppler measurement related to the at least one echo signal, and locate an intersection of the first uncertainty curve and the second uncertainty curve to determine the elevation of the object.),
wherein the respective phase centers of the antennas are arranged along an imaginary antenna axis, which extends parallel to the elevation reference plane ([0023] The receiver array 44 can be in the form of an array of horizontally spaced antenna elements (i.e., spaced along the x-axis of the coordinate system 60 shown in FIG. 1)), a first reference axis fixed in relation to the radar system as the reference area for the first direction variables ([0028] The receiver array 44 includes horizontally spaced antenna elements 210a, 210b, 210c and 210d aligned along the x-axis. A reflection point 202 indicating a location of an object 50, FIG. 1, is shown at a selected location within the grid 200. Phase measurements at the antenna elements 210a-210d determine an azimuth angle of the reflection point 202 with respect to the receiver array 44.) and a fixed second reference axis as the reference area for the second direction variable ([0034] In box 808, the height or elevation of the reflection point 202 is determined using Eq. (5). In box 810, the coordinate of the reflection point can be determined from the results of box 808.). And a vehicle comprising the least one radar system ([0008] In yet another exemplary embodiment, a vehicle is disclosed. The vehicle includes a radar system and a processor.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bialer (US 20200393540) in view of Sturm (DE 102017118387 – machine translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Bialer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bialer discloses the second direction variable corresponds to the respective traveling velocity, which contains second direction variables as a function of first direction variables and radial velocities ([0032] The Doppler measurement v.sub.r is related to the v.sub.x and v.sub.y components of the velocity vector by Eq. (3): Examiner’s note- x/R = cos(azimuth angle) ) and y/R = sin(elevation angle), see Fig. 2) and wherein the at least one elevation variable and/or the azimuth of the object target is calculated by means of the first direction variable and the second direction variable ([0032] Eq. (5) therefore expresses elevation z in terms of parameters that can be determined by the radar system: range R, azimuth x, Doppler v.sub.r, and x-and y-velocity components (v.sub.x, v.sub.y)). Bailer fails to disclose that is accomplished by using a conversion table
However, Sturm teaches a vehicular radar method with using a conversion table to calculate a direction angle based on other parameters ([0043] In a further advantageous embodiment, the evaluation device can have at least one algorithm for calculating at least one direction angle and/or at least one lookup table for extracting at least one direction angle based on at least one quantity that characterizes at least one runtime difference.).
Bialer and Sturm are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of vehicular radar technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bialer by including the lookup table of Sturm for the predictable result of an efficient means of calculation with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicular radar technology.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bialer (US 20200393540) in view of Maile (DE 102018218003 – machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Bialer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bialer does not explicitly disclose that the first direction variable and the second direction variable are implemented in the form of angles.
However, Maile teaches a method for a vehicular radar for detecting targets ([0006] Based on this, the invention aims to provide a method, a computer program, and a tracking or measurement system for evaluating motion information, which improves the accuracy in the detection of static or mobile targets.) with the first direction variable and the second direction variable are implemented in the form of angles ([0074] In the calibration process of the Fig. 11 Not only the lateral angle and the radial velocity were determined but also the elevation angle is taken into account… based on the static function and the fitting of a 2D plane into the points v<sub>rad,n</sub> (ϕ, θ ), which each describe the radial velocity of the nth target as a function of the respective angle (azimuth angle and elevation angle).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bialer by including the expression of the two direction variables in terms of two angles by Maile to yield a predictable result of simplifying the representation of target objects by using the appropriate theoretical description as noted by Maile ([0051] This static function, referred to here simply as the "cosine function" (the theoretical function has further terms, we only speak of a "cosine" for the sake of simplicity), corresponds to the theoretical distribution of the static targets derived above and depends, among other things, on the current self-motion of the motor vehicle, as well as possibly on one or more extrinsic parameters.).
Regarding claim 7, Bialer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bialer does not explicitly disclose before the determination of the second direction variable, checking whether the detected object target is stationary, and if the object target is not stationary, the method for determining at least one elevation variable is ended for this object target.
Maile teaches before the determination of the second direction variable, checking whether the detected object target is stationary ([0007] The embodiments show a method for determining the self-propulsion of a motor vehicle using a tracking system that provides a number of targets, wherein the method: a) determines which of the targets provided by the tracking system are static targets,), and if the object target is not stationary, the method for determining at least one elevation variable is ended for this object target ([0007] b) fits a regression function to the static targets, the regression function describing the expected distribution of the static targets in the field of view of the tracking system and depending on one or more motion parameters of the motor vehicle; and one or more of the motion parameters of the motor vehicle are determined from the fitted regression function.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bialer by including the determining which objects are stationary and thus are candidates for progressing through the method to yield a predictable result of selecting the appropriate set of objects to apply the elevation measurement algorithm with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicular radar technology.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bialer (US 20200393540) in view of Maile (DE 102018218003 – machine translation) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Klotzbuecher (US 20190204415).
Regarding claim 8, Bialer as modified by Maile teaches the method of claim 7, accordingly the rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated. Bialer as modified by Maile teaches to check whether the object target is stationary (Maile, [0007] The embodiments show a method for determining the self-propulsion of a motor vehicle using a tracking system that provides a number of targets, wherein the method: a) determines which of the targets provided by the tracking system are static targets). Bialer as modified by Maile fails to teach calculating a difference is between the radial velocity and the product of the traveling velocity with the cosine of the first direction variable, comparing the difference to at least one limiting value, and wherein it is assumed depending on the result of the comparison that the object target is stationary and the method for determining the at least one elevation variable is continued, otherwise the method is ended for this object target, and/or, comparing the difference to two specified limiting values and, if the difference is between the two limiting values, it is assumed that the object target is stationary and the method for determining the at least one elevation variable is continued, otherwise the method is ended for this object target.
However, Klotzbuecher teaches a method for vehicular radar that distinguishes between stationary and moving objects ([0005] For this purpose, vehicles have been equipped with radar systems that are arranged to detect the presence of an object in the blind spot and automatically produce a signal which alerts the driver of the vehicle to the presence of the obstacle. In order to achieve this, a radar system must be able to determine the relative velocity between the vehicle into which it is fitted and a potential obstacle in order to distinguish the obstacle from stationary objects) with calculating a difference is between the radial velocity and the product of the traveling velocity with the cosine of the first direction variable (Eq. 3 and Eq. 4, [0041] The control unit 13 is arranged to perform a velocity estimation for each partial volume 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e such that a total velocity distribution 14 is acquired along a side extension E that is perpendicular to the extension of the direction D, as illustrated in FIG. 3 that shows the estimation ΔV′ of the actual relative velocity, according to Equation 4, as a function of the side extension E for all the measurement points 9, 9′.), comparing the difference to at least one limiting value, and wherein it is assumed depending on the result of the comparison that the object target is stationary and the method for determining the at least one elevation variable is continued, otherwise the method is ended for this object target, and/or, comparing the difference to two specified limiting values and, if the difference is between the two limiting values, it is assumed that the object target is stationary and the method for determining the at least one elevation variable is continued, otherwise the method is ended for this object target ([0043] In this way, one or more groups of measurement points 9, 9′ are formed, where each group of measurement points 9, 9′ corresponds to one or more partial volumes and to a certain partial velocity distribution 22. Adjacent groups of measurement points 9, 9′ have a difference of velocity distribution magnitude that exceeds a certain threshold. In this manner target objects with different velocities can be separated from each other.).
Bialer and Klotzbuecher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of vehicular radar technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bialer by including the stationary object discrimination techniques of Klotzbuecher to yield a predictable result of distinguishing moving from stationary objects with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicular radar technology. The combination would improve the accuracy of the system since these techniques for elevation estimation are limited to stationary objects the objects are stationary as noted in the rejection of claim 7.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 8390507 discloses a radar system. Received signals are acquired from different combinations of transmitter and receiver antennas of the system. With regard to a series of such antenna combinations having their respective phase centers ordered in a spatial direction R, the positions of the phase centers of the combinations vary periodically with the period length P in a spatial direction S that runs perpendicular to the spatial direction R. Signal processing circuitry makes conclusions about the position of an object in the spatial direction S, based on an evaluation that the received signals from the object have a phase portion that alternates with the period length P over the antenna combinations ordered as set forth above, depending on the angular position of the object in the spatial direction S.
US 20120019408 discloses a radar system with a microwave antenna having a radiator array configured to scan in a horizontal direction, a method for scanning in the vertical direction. A first FMCW microwave signal having a first bandwidth is transmitted at a first microwave frequency and the echo, if any, is received by the radiator array. A second FMCW microwave signal having a second bandwidth is also transmitted at a different center frequency and the echo, if any, is received by the radiator array. The different frequencies cause an elevational shift in the received signal. The receipt of the echoes is then processed to identify the location or locations of the object or objects causing the echo and communicating such location or locations to a user.
US 20160282464 discloses a radar method and system for determining elevation angles where than one target object is situated within a radar cell. Through the estimation according to the present invention of the elevation angles in multi-target scenarios, even in such cases both azimuth angles and elevation angles can be determined, and a reliable classification of the respective target objects can then take place. The present system also relates to a motor vehicle having a radar system that includes an azimuth and elevation angle estimation method and system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571)272-6878. 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646