DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears to be grammatically incorrect, e.g. what is it that is “including displacement” per line 11? The intent of the claim in general appears clear, i.e. that the radar operates as a SAR, inverse SAR, or MIMO, however appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 7, 11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "its change" in referring to an expected artefact position at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further concerning claim 5, the final line requires this change “is considered”. It is not clear if this is intended as a step in itself; if so it is not clear what a step of “considering” in fact requires. Alternatively, if this change consideration is intended as part of the “evaluation” this is not clear, particularly as there is no context for the “change” as addressed above.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the measurement" at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 13 employ the term “several” at lines 7 and 2, respectively. It is unclear what the intended scope of “several” includes. For example, the specification describes “several” in one context as “e.g. at least four or at least ten or at least one hundred”, which are merely examples rather than a definition. Is a “plurality” intended instead?
Regarding claim 15, the claim optionally requires “identifying whether calibration leads to channel error” The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear. The limitation is presented as an alternative to a step of “calibrating”, yet it appears that in order to identify whether calibration leads to channel error, calibration would first be required?. Alternatively, is the limitation intended as a determination of whether calibration would lead to channel error (if performed)? Complicating interpretation, the specification is found to provide minimal description of this “identifying”, such that the intent cannot be determined. Correction and clarification is required.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and is likewise indefinite.
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.
Independent claim 1 recites:
“identifying at least one target within a measuring image”; and
“determining artefact positions associated with the identified at least one target within the measuring image”.
Independent claim 17 recites corresponding functions assigned to a radar based measuring system.
Independent claim 15 recites:
“identifying at least one target within a measuring image”;
“determining artefact positions associated with the identified at least one target within the measuring image” and
“calibrating or identifying whether calibration leads to channel error in at least one receiving device or a transmitting device used for an acquisition to generate the measuring image”
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1, 15, and 17 require identifying at least one target within a measuring image and determining artefact positions associated with the identified at least one target within the measuring image. These encompass mental observations or evaluations.
The “calibrating or identifying…” step of claim 17 likewise includes purely mental observations or evaluations.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1 and 15 includes no additional elements. The exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites additional elements of a receiving device configured to acquire data to generate a measuring image, a processing circuit, and a memory circuit communicatively coupled with the processor circuit.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, the receiving device (which may be merely an input to the processor), memory and processor generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mental process) without placing any limitation on how the processor operates. The claim invokes generic computer elements as a tool for performing the recited idea rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, there being no additional elements.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the elements oof claim 17 were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-19 add additional mental observations or evaluations which do not introduce any additional elements. It is noted that while some claims make general references to calibration, the claims in general are worded very broadly so as not to exclude mental embodiments or otherwise amount to a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 8 merely further describes the system that the method is “for”, without adding additional elements to the required process.
Claims 11 and 13 merely further describe the measuring signals that the method is designed to evaluate without adding additional elements to the required process.
Claim 20 adds the additional element that the components of the system are coupled to a vehicle or comprise a portion of a vehicle. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). Further, vehicle based radar is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art, as demonstrated by Hasberg et al. (US 2020/0110169) and Maher (US 2020/0292666), and does not represent significantly more.
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) 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Hasberg et al. (US 2020/0110169).
Regarding claim 1, Hasberg discloses a method for evaluating measuring signals of a radar system (Figure 3), the method comprising: identifying at least one target within a measuring image (S1/S2); and
determining artefact positions associated with the identified at least one target within the measuring image (S3/S4). See e.g. [0008], [0010], [0029], [0030].
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Hasberg discloses the corresponding radar based vehicle system (10) comprising a receiving device (12, 14, 16), processor (24), with coupled memory (implicit) to cause the system to perform the method of claim 1 as indicated above.
Regarding claim 2, Hasberg implicitly discloses determining amplitude or power at the determined artefact positions, e.g. [0033] describes how “weak reflection signal” barely distinguishable from noise is generated when a noise barrier is present, but a “clear” reflection occurs later which generates false object 50 (Fig. 4). Further, Hasberg discloses ([0029]) predicting signal strength of such objects, the implication being this is to compare to detected actual reflected strength (amplitude).
Regarding claim 3, Hasberg discloses the amplitude or power value is used to derive a quality criterion for a calibration or measurement and classifying at least one or more underlying calibration parameters or channel errors ([0029]: “The strength of the signals indicating the pseudo object may also be predicted within certain limits. This makes it easier to differentiate in evaluation modules 22 or in central evaluation unit 24 between real objects and pseudo objects based on reflections”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Hasberg discloses the claimed comparison of target and artefact characteristics ([0027], [0029]; [0031]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Hasberg discloses the at least one characteristic is used to perform a calibration of the radar system ([0032], interpreting as false object).
Regarding claim 7, interpreting “artefacts” as false targets as disclosed by Hasberg is a change to a calibration parameter or channel error optimized to minimize error influence ([0032]).
Regarding claim 8, the radar of Hasberg includes a transmitting device as a component of a receiving device or separately (radars 12, 14, 16 send and receive signals).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hasberg discloses at least one artefact position to be evaluated is determined from position or spatial frequency of a known target (e.g. of surroundings module 30; [0027], [0030]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Hasberg discloses that multiple artefact positions are inferred from a target position by means of a fixed relationship ([0029]).
Regarding claim 12, the selected measurements of Hasberg have a corresponding periodic structure ([0021] radar waves are periodic, and therefore produce measurements having a corresponding periodic structure).
Regarding claim 13, Hasberg discloses measuring signals from multiple measurements are combined ([0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Hasberg discloses roughly predetermining or pre-estimating at least one calibration parameter (model 30, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Hasberg discloses a method for operating a radar system (Figure 3), the method comprising: identifying at least one target within a measuring image (S1/S2);
determining artefact positions associated with the identified at least one target within the measuring image (S3/S4; See e.g. [0008], [0010], [0029], [0030]); and
calibrating at least one receiving or transmitting device used for acquisition to generate the image (([0032], interpreting as false object).
Regarding claim 16, the claim further details the optional step from claim 15 of identifying whether calibration leads to channel errors. As the scope of the claim includes embodiments where this is not required (i.e. where calibration is performed instead, as with Hasberg), the claim is likewise anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maher et al. (US 2020/0292666).
Hasberg is not found to specify the radar measuring signal is formed by measurements with a periodic structure or elements, e.g. according to a MIMO principle. Maher discloses a vehicle based radar where the measuring signal is formed by measurements with a periodic structure or elements according to a MIMO principle (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the method of Hasberg to use radar measuring signals according to the MIMO principle as claimed and as suggested by Maher in order to achieve the well known MIMO advantage of improved angular resolution (Maher [0041]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 102275280 discloses predicting ghost objects in a radar application.
US 20200278435 discloses identifying ghost or phantom reflections.
US 20200258296 discloses predicting artifacts in a synthetic aperture radar application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights