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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 06/10/2024. Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 18-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Benefit is given to the priority documents DE10 2021 132 772.5 filed 12/11/2021 and DE10 2022 105 460.8 filed 03/08/2022. All claims have support in DE10 2021 132 772.5 and are given the benefit of the effective filing date of 09/24/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “extracting a delay information and/or a velocity information” should read “extracting delay information and/or velocity information” for grammatical reasons. 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation, between 30 GHz and 300 GHz, and the claim also recites between 50 and 150 GHz and between 57 and 71 GHz, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-9, 11-14 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below, supporting analysis follows the Subject Matter Eligibility Test described in MPEP § 2106.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 12 are directed towards a method, a non-transitory machine-readable medium and a receiver, respectively. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 11 and 12, and the corresponding dependent claims 2-9, 13-14 and 18-23 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A method of processing wireless communication signals for use in radar sensing, comprising:
- receiving a reflected communication signal, wherein the reflected communication signal is a reflection of a sent communication signal comprising a sent preamble part and a sent data payload, reflected off of at least one object, wherein the reflected communication signal comprises a corresponding reflected preamble part and a reflected data payload,
- determining a first radar ambiguity function for the reflected preamble part of the reflected communication signal
- determining a second radar ambiguity function for the reflected data payload of the reflected communication signal
- combining the first and the second radar ambiguity functions using a point-wise minimum selection, for obtaining a combined radar ambiguity function.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause performance of operations comprising:
-receiving a reflected communication signal, wherein the reflected communication signal is a reflection of a sent communication signal comprising a sent preamble part and a sent data payload, reflected off of at least one object, wherein the reflected communication signal comprises a corresponding reflected preamble part and a reflected data payload,
-determining a first radar ambiguity function for the reflected preamble part of the reflected communication signal,
-determining a second radar ambiguity function for the reflected data payload of the reflected communication signal,
-combining the first and the second radar ambiguity functions using a point-wise minimum selection, for obtaining a combined radar ambiguity function.
Independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A receiver for a joint radar and wireless communication, JRC, configured for performing operation comprising:
-receiving a reflected communication signal, wherein the reflected communication signal is a reflection of a sent communication signal comprising a sent preamble part and a sent data payload, reflected off of at least one object, wherein the reflected communication signal comprises a corresponding reflected preamble part and a reflected data payload,
-determining a first radar ambiguity function for the reflected preamble part of the reflected communication signal,
--determining a second radar ambiguity function for the reflected data payload of the reflected communication signal,
-combining the first and the second radar ambiguity functions using a point-wise minimum selection, for obtaining a combined radar ambiguity function.
These limitations, as drafted, are a system that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mathematical calculation or a mental concept. For example, determining a radar ambiguity function is understood in light of Eqs. 8 and 9 of the instant specification to be a mathematical operation. Furthermore, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step of “combining the first and second radar ambiguity functions using a point-wise minimum selection, for obtaining a combined radar ambiguity function” from practically being performed as a mental process. This step may be interpreted as a mental determination made according to observable data, such as determining which function at a particular location has the minimum value. The mere recitation of generic computing components does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
If the claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A, Prong 2. In Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Regarding Prong 2, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In claim 1, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of processing wireless communication signals for use in radar sensing, comprising:
- receiving a reflected communication signal, wherein the reflected communication signal is a reflection of a sent communication signal comprising a sent preamble part and a sent data payload, reflected off of at least one object, wherein the reflected communication signal comprises a corresponding reflected preamble part and a reflected data payload,
- determining a first radar ambiguity function for the reflected preamble part of the reflected communication signal
- determining a second radar ambiguity function for the reflected data payload of the reflected communication signal
- combining the first and the second radar ambiguity functions using a point-wise minimum selection, for obtaining a combined radar ambiguity function.
In claim 11, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause performance of operations comprising:
-receiving a reflected communication signal, wherein the reflected communication signal is a reflection of a sent communication signal comprising a sent preamble part and a sent data payload, reflected off of at least one object, wherein the reflected communication signal comprises a corresponding reflected preamble part and a reflected data payload,
-determining a first radar ambiguity function for the reflected preamble part of the reflected communication signal,
-determining a second radar ambiguity function for the reflected data payload of the reflected communication signal,
-combining the first and the second radar ambiguity functions using a point-wise minimum selection, for obtaining a combined radar ambiguity function.
In claim 12, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A receiver for a joint radar and wireless communication, JRC, configured for performing operation comprising:
-receiving a reflected communication signal, wherein the reflected communication signal is a reflection of a sent communication signal comprising a sent preamble part and a sent data payload, reflected off of at least one object, wherein the reflected communication signal comprises a corresponding reflected preamble part and a reflected data payload,
-determining a first radar ambiguity function for the reflected preamble part of the reflected communication signal,
--determining a second radar ambiguity function for the reflected data payload of the reflected communication signal,
-combining the first and the second radar ambiguity functions using a point-wise minimum selection, for obtaining a combined radar ambiguity function.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of claim 1, “receiving a reflected communication signal” amounts to extra-solution activity.
Regarding the further additional elements of claim 11, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is merely a generic component which allows the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process.
Regarding the further additional elements of claim 12, “a receiver” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, 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
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong 2, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether it provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional element of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the “receiver” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, “receiving a reflected communication signal” amounts to extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g), and the cases cited therein, including Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) indicate that when the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output), the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2, 18 and 21 recite a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which merely amounts to extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 3, 19 and 22 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterization of the type of data used in determining the radar ambiguity function). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 4, 20 and 23 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterization of the type of data used in the pointwise-minimum selection step). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 5 and 6 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterization of the type of data used in determining the radar ambiguity function). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 7 recite tools used to determine the radar ambiguity function, which merely amounts instructions to apply the abstract idea. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 8 recite a further abstract idea, e.g. extracting delay or velocity information from the radar ambiguity function, which may be interpreted as obtaining information from a mathematical function and performed as a mental determination. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 9 recite a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which merely amounts to extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 13 and 14 recite hardware used perform the necessary data gathering, which merely amounts to extra-solution activity. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Although published after the effective filing date of the instant application and not eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), Guan (WO-2021251902-A1) is considered relevant prior art as it discloses a method similar to the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (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 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights