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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on January 26, 2026 in response to the Office action dated November 21, 2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1 and 11 amended. Claims 8, 10, 18 and 20 are canceled. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17 and 19 are pending and under examination in this Office action.
Response to Amendment
The objections to claims 1 and 11 are now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 26, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7, 9, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-7 and 9 are drawn to a “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a machine.
Claims 11-17 and 19 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1 and 11 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows: “performing a first convolution operation”, “performing a first multiply accumulate operation”; “performing a second convolution operation”; “performing a second multiply accumulate operation”; “performing a first difference operation according to the first result”, “calculating a ratio of the first difference to the second accumulated value” and “generating a vital sign according to the first processed signal”.
In claims 1 and 11, the above recited steps are mathematical concepts, which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
The convolution operation and the multiply accumulate operation are disclosed in the specification, PG Pub US 2025/0040824 A1, [0053] as mathematical operations implemented by formula (6) and (7). The performance of the difference operation is implemented according to formula (8) and (9) in [0054], and [0055] discloses that the ratio is obtained according to formula (10). In regard to the generation of th vital sign, [0068] discloses that the processor may subtract the reference signal (PS3) from the processed signal PS1 to obtain the vital signal corresponding to the target detected by the radar. Subtraction of signal data is a mathematical operation.
Therefore, each of the above steps are grouped as mathematical concepts, hence an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 11 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: “generating a vital sign according to the first processed signal, wherein the vital sign comprises a time-varying signal indicating a position change”.
In claims 1 and 11, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation on the processed signal, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to identify the trend, for example, the change in amplitude over time, via visual examination, and further to estimate the vital sign, and would further be able to relate the vital sign to a position change. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the vital sign is generated according to the first processed signal. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the generation mentally, with a pen and paper, or with a generic computer.
Prong Two: Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of radio frequency signal transmitting, receiving by the first radar, and demodulation to obtain a receiving in-phase component and a receiving quadrature component by a processor; and (2) further an addition step of outputting the vital sign.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details).
The step in (2) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the generation of the vital sign is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of (1) a processor and a radar for the radio frequency signal transmitting, receiving and demodulation to obtain a receiving in-phase component and a receiving quadrature component; and (2) outputting the vital sign. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
The radio frequency signal is transmitted and received by a radar transceiver. The in-phase quadrature demodulation is performed by a processor. The vital sign output is implemented by a user interface. These additional limitations merely represent insignificant, conventional pre-solution activities. For similar reasons set forth in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Accordingly, these additional steps and tools for measuring and processing a radar signal, and generating and outing a vital sign amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims hence are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Signal subtraction based on their relative magnitude of the power component to a threshold (claims 3 and 13) – signal subtraction is mathematical concept. Thresholding is a mental step;
Look up table query and process the signal according to the vibration frequency (claims 4-5 and 14-15) – both steps are further mental steps that may be performed by observation and trend identification;
Performing low-pass filtering (claims 9 and 19); and
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
describing the second radar sensor (claims 2 and 12);
describing the I/Q components of the signal (claims 6 and 16); and
describing the radar signals being PFDM signals (claims 7 and 17).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to Applicant’s assertion to Prong 1 of Step 2A that “claims 1 and 11 are not about the mathematical formula itself, but about a “specific radar signal processing method that uses a particular orthogonal symbol sequence to eliminate hardware errors (such as IQ channel gain inconsistency),” and is not an abstract idea. The federal Circuit’s decision in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) also supports this position”.
Applicant further asserted in regard to Prong 2 of Step 2A that the claimed invention clearly integrate these concepts into a practical application, and in regard to Step 2B that claims 1 and 11 include an inventive concept which is reflected by the entire claimed disclosure, the technical solution of “performing convolution, multiply accumulate and difference operations to remove the IQ gain of the radar signal” is not we3ll-understood, routine or conventional activity in the memory management field.
Examiner respectfully disagree. Examiner respectfully notes that the guideline for determining patent eligibility for a claim is well-established as published in MPEP 2106.
In MPEP 2106.04, the guideline clearly states that the claim should be analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1 to determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception first. If it is, the claim is further analyzed in Prong 2 to determine if it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is not, according to MPEP 2106,05, the claim is further analyzed in Step 2B to determine if it recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If it is not, then the claim is determined to be patent ineligible. Step 2A, Prong 1 focuses on claim limitations that are determined to be a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea if the limitations can be grouped into either I. mathematical concepts, II. Certain methods of organizing human activity; or III. mental processes. Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B focus on any limitations additional to the limitations that are determined to be an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully reminds that the practical application or limitations that may amount to significantly more than the judicial exception cannot be the abstract idea itself. In response to Applicant’s assertion in regard to the Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, the abstract idea cannot be the practical application. The abstract idea also cannot amount to significantly more than itself.
Claims 1 and 11 are analyzed according to the above summarized guideline. Limitations that are determined to be an abstract idea are disclosed in the specification as being implemented by mathematical operations and/or mentally. The additional elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner acknowledges the case law cited in the Remarks, Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States. However, Examiner follows the guideline in MPEP when analyzing a claim to determine its patent eligibility. Based on the analysis presented in the rejection, claims 1 and 11 recite elements that are abstract idea of mathematical concept and/or mental processes, and additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities. The claims, when considered as a whole, are determined to be patent ineligible.
Based on the above considerations, claims 1-7, 9, 11-17 and 19 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798