DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-11 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 claims 1 and 9-11, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the measured velocity is put to use or output a concrete result.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the system, device, method, and product for measuring a velocity based on wireless communication that is accomplished through a series of mental processes and/or mathematical operations. The claims also 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 utilizing mathematical calculations. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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.” Alice, 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 its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 9 recites a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 10 recites a product. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 recites a device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is 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 claims 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.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 9-11, recites the steps of:
obtaining a first channel estimate and a second channel estimate according to the first observation signal and the second observation signal respectively;
obtaining a first path gain corresponding to the first reference signal and a second path gain corresponding to the second reference signal based on the first channel estimate and the second channel estimate respectively;
obtaining a path phase difference experienced by the first reference signal and the second reference signal when transmitted to the receiving device according to the first path gain and the second path gain; and
obtaining a Doppler shift based on the path phase difference and the preset duration, and
obtaining a moving velocity of the transmitting device relative to the receiving device based on the Doppler shift.
The “obtaining a first channel estimate and a second channel estimate…” step may be performed by observing the received signal and generating the data based on the received signal which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation and evaluation.
The “obtaining a first path gain […] and a second path gain” step may be performed by evaluating the data which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using evaluation.
The “obtaining a path phase difference…” step may be performed by evaluating the data which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using evaluation.
The “obtaining a Doppler shift…” step may be performed by evaluating the data which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using evaluation.
The “obtaining a moving velocity…” step may be performed by evaluating the data which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using evaluation.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1 and 9-11 encompass processes that can be performed mentally and/or by mathematical operations; thus, fall within “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-8 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 2-8, the further steps of obtaining the channel estimates, obtaining the path gains, obtaining the path phase difference as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 also falls within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, 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.
The only additional elements of claim 1, and similarly claim 9-11, are “obtaining a first observation signal and a second observation signal, wherein the first observation signal and the second observation signal are signals actually received by the receiving device when the first reference signal and the second reference signal are transmitted to the receiving device via a channel”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, the transmitting device, the receiving device are operating in a known manner which simply provide what all transmitting/receiving devices provide. They also act only for data communicating, gathering, and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, claims 1-11 require no more than a generic computer (i.e. a processor for performing the claimed functions were described throughout Applicant’s disclosure) 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. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
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, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 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 additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 rejections must be overcome.
US 2025/0341623 discloses a computer-implemented method for estimating a travelling speed of a wireless device in a wireless communications network, where the wireless device has transmitted a signal sequence to a network node via two or more signal paths. The method includes obtaining data indicative of a Doppler speed difference between respective multipath components of the signal sequence transmitted via the two or more signal paths; obtaining data indicative of direction of departure, DoD, (nUE,P1, nUE,P2) of the two or more signal paths at the wireless device; and estimating the travelling speed of the wireless device based on the data indicative of the Doppler speed difference and the data indicative of DoD.
US 2025/0097885 discloses sensing-based, mobility-aware waveform adaptation. A transmitting device may estimate a velocity vector for a mobile device. The velocity vector estimate may be based on measurements made at the mobile device and fed back to the transmitting device or based on measurements made at other devices in the environment and provided to the transmitting device. The transmitting device may, based on the estimate of the velocity vector, obtain a Doppler variable estimate for a signal path between the transmitting device and the mobile device. The transmitting device may then adapt a to-be-transmitted waveform based on the Doppler variable estimate for the signal path and then transmit the adapted waveform. Occasionally, the transmitting device may obtain updates to parameters that describe the location and mobility of the mobile device. On the basis of the updates, the transmitting device may update the waveform adaptation.
WO 2024/154895 discloses a 5th generation (5G) or pre-5G communication system for supporting a higher data transmission rate than a 4th generation (4G) communication system such as long term evolution (LTE). The present disclosure provides a method performed by a reception device in a wireless communication system. The method may comprise: a first step of estimating a path delay value for a received signal; a second step of estimating a path Doppler shift value for the received signal on the basis of the received signal and the path delay value; a third step of estimating a path gain value for the received signal on the basis of the received signal, the path delay value, and the path Doppler shift value; a fourth step of estimating the strongest reception path for the received signal by estimating a path channel matrix for the received signal on the basis of the path delay value, the path Doppler shift value, and the path gain value; a fifth step of, if the number of estimated paths does not exceed a set number of paths, eliminating a component for the strongest reception path from the received signal; and a step of repeatedly performing the first to fifth steps on the received signal from which the component for the strongest reception path has been eliminated, thereby increasing the number of estimated paths until the number of estimated paths exceeds the set number of paths.
KR 20200055452 discloses a method of operating a reception device for the estimation of a channel in a wireless communication system. According to the present invention, the method of operating a reception device includes the following steps of: initializing support and residual vectors by using a sensing matrix and a measurement vector derived from a MIMO baseband stream received from a transmission device; selecting a final support by using a correlation value pair and a candidate support by a MIMO baseband stream derived based on at least one of the measurement vector, the sensing matrix, and the support and residual vectors, and then, adding the selected support to a support group to estimate a starting angle and an arrival angle; estimating a path gain based on the measurement vector and the sensing matrix with respect to the support group; and determining the estimated starting and arrival angles and the estimated path gain when the difference between the residual vector and the measurement vector is within a preset error range.
WO 2013/175951 discloses a receiving apparatus, a Doppler frequency calculation method, and a computer program. The objective of the invention is to properly compute a Doppler frequency even if there is a possibility that a phase of a channel estimate value is non-contiguous in the time direction. A receiving device comprises: a receiving means for receiving a transmitted signal which is transmitted from a transmission device; a transform means for transforming the transmitted signal which is received by the receiving means to a frequency region signal; an estimation means for executing a channel estimation process on the basis of the frequency region signal which is obtained by the transform means; and a computation means for computing a Doppler frequency on the basis of a channel estimate value which is estimated by the estimation means. If there is a possibility that the phase of the channel estimation value may be non-contiguous in the time direction, the computation means carries out a correction process on data during the calculation which derives the Doppler frequency, and thereafter, computes the Doppler frequency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646