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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following item(s) from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 24 January 2025. The references have been considered.
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 and is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations that are considered to be data processing. 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)). The 101 guidance instructs us to 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. As best understood, the claims contain limitations are directed to data processing, as is similar to Electric Power Group, Benson and Flook.
Specifically, the claims obtain data and process the data using various mental process, or algorithms and/or mathematical concepts to make a determination based on the result of the processed data; these steps will all fall under the category of Mathematical Concepts and/or mental processes and they are considered to be abstract. See the updated 101 guidance issued in October 2019, sections A and C.
Analysis of the claims
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.
Claim 1 which is being used for analysis recites: detecting a received signal including one or more targets signals and interference; converting the received signal to a matrix signal; decomposing the matrix signal into a low-rank matrix and a sparse matrix using a group sparsity based low-rank and sparse decomposition method; computing an inverse transform of the low-rank matrix; and outputting the one or more target signals.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of gathered data and making a determination based on the result of the data processing which encompass the use of mathematical operations or can be performed as a mental process alongside the application of a computer 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).
The claim recites a first additional element of “detecting a received signal including one or more targets signals and interference…”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/processing. This limitation is interpreted as insignificant pre- and post-solution activity, i.e., necessary data gathering and data outputting, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). It is necessary to acquire the data and process it to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites a second additional element of “outputting the one or more target signals”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering/processing. This limitation is interpreted as insignificant pre- and post-solution activity, i.e., necessary data gathering and data outputting, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). It is necessary to acquire the data and process it to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations and outputting the result amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
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, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and output of a result.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no elements in Claim 1 that appear to clearly have any actionable steps other than making a determination or outputting a result which would be mere extra-solution activity.
As is best understood Claim 1 is directed to gathering data for processing by a processor or processor based elements (although not claimed) and there are no explicit structural elements claimed in these claims that would be considered enough to make the claims non-abstract as the heart of the claim is directed to abstract processing steps. While a receiver is implicitly part of the method, it is merely a tool for data gathering. The use of generic/well known elements and general processors/computers for the mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as significantly more. While the claim has a step of outputting, it is claimed in a manner consistent with what has been found by courts to be abstract, the mere act of outputting a result does equate to significantly more. As currently claimed the limitations are just an operation of processing a signal and outputting a signal without anything that would be considered significantly more, the operation of processing data to output a result has been found to be an abstract idea.
Therefore, the limitation represents 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:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the assumed processor is equal to a machine being merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Receiving data is basic data gathering and would not provide significantly more and is insignificant extra-solution activity as the 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 or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). The processor also does` not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a “computer system.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). There is no indication that the assumed CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device.
Therefore, these limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
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.
There are no limitations in the independent or the dependent claims that would make the processor/computer change in operation in a manner that would make it work in a way that is new and not capable of being done on a generic processor/computer. The processor in these claims performs merely as a tool and does not appear to provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer. Absent evidence to the contrary, claims 1-20 merely rely on the processing of data. Making a determination as a result of processed data is well known and conventional.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 expand on the processing and/or mathematical concepts limitations by claim limitations directed to defining steps of the processing, setting values/specific processes and use of the processed data and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 11 teaches a system that essentially applies the method of Claim 1. Claim 11 defines the use a processor and storage medium, but they are routine and conventional elements and are tools for the operation of data gathering and processing. The use of a processor and memory is well known and convention and required for data gathering and as such does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Taken alone or as an ordered combination, the limitations of claims do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Outputting a result from the computational operations is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 1-20 merely rely on generic components as a tool to apply the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea to generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. While the newly provided guidance of December 2025 states that “When evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere “generic computer components” without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system.” There are no limitations stating that the any assumed structural elements behave in a non-conventional manner or that the assumed processor is using collected and stored data for anything more than evaluation. All other dependent claims build upon the abstract idea and do not result in significantly more or a practical application and merely just expand on how the software and algorithms operate to process the data. There is no claim to how the processed data is used besides simply making a determination/output or what tangible step is taken once the processing is done that would link the processing of data to practical application or an actual actionable step. While the algorithms and calculation processing may be novel, novelty does not change the claim from being an abstract idea.
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, 5-9, 11-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Wang, Interference Mitigation for FMCW Radar With Sparse and Low-Rank Hankel Matrix Decomposition).
Referring to Claim 1, Wang teaches detecting a received signal including one or more targets signals and interference (p.823 II. Problem Formulation ln 1-2); converting the received signal to a matrix signal (p.824 Fig. 1 and “The matrix pencil method…through Equation (5)); decomposing the matrix signal into a low-rank matrix and a sparse matrix using a group sparsity based low-rank and sparse decomposition method (p.824 Fig. 1 and “The Hankel matrix X related…through…sparse in the time domain); computing an inverse transform of the low-rank matrix (see above Hankel matrix X citation as well as p.825 Equation 24 and associated text); and outputting the one or more target signals (Fig. 2(b) and associated text as well as p.828 Fig. 3(a) and the last paragraph on the left hand side).
Referring to Claims 2 and 12, Wang teaches wherein the received signal comprises a one-dimensional signal and the matrix signal comprises a two-dimensional signal; p.824 Fig. 1 and associated text.
Referring to Claims 3 and 13, Wang teaches wherein converting the received signal to a matrix signal comprises performing a short time Fourier transform on the received signal; p.823 II. Problem Formulation to p.824 paragraph ending with suppression performance.
Referring to Claims 5 and 15, Wang teaches wherein converting the received signal to a matrix signal comprises performing Hankel matrix lifting on the received signal; p.824 and Fig. 1 and associated text.
Referring to Claims 6 and 16, Wang teaches wherein the inverse transform comprises an inverse Hankel matrix lifting; p.825 Equation 24 and associated text.
Referring to Claims 7 and 17, Wang teaches wherein the low-rank matrix corresponds to the one or more target signals; p.824 and Fig. 1 and associated text.
Referring to Claims 8 and 18, Wang teaches wherein the sparse matrix corresponds to the interference; p.824 and Fig. 1 and associated text.
Referring to Claims 9 and 19, Wang teaches wherein the interference corresponds to three or more interference sources; p.823 II. Problem Formulation ln 1-2 teaches a plurality of responses so it is implicitly taught.
Referring to Claim 11, Wang teaches a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the processor and comprising a plurality of computer-readable instructions tangibly embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which, when executed by the processor, process radar data, the plurality of computer-readable instructions comprising (p.830 paragraph above section V): instructions that cause the processor to detecting a received signal including one or more targets signals and interference; instructions that cause the processor to convert the received signal to a matrix signal; instructions that cause the processor to decompose the matrix signal into a low-rank matrix and a sparse matrix using a group sparsity based low-rank and sparse decomposition method; instructions that cause the processor to compute an inverse transform of the low-rank matrix; and instructions that cause the processor to output the one or more target signals; see rejection of Claim 1 above for citations.
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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Corbett (US PGPub 2017/0010344).
Referring to Claims 4 and 14, Wang teaches the inverse transform, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it comprises an inverse short time Fourier transform.
However, Corbett teaches the inverse transform comprises an inverse short time Fourier transform; [0032].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang with the inverse short time Fourier transform as taught by Corbett as it predictably mitigates radar interference by detecting and repairing interference in waveforms.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Servadei et al. (Servadei, US PGPub 2022/0082654).
Referring to Claims 10 and 20, Wang teaches determining interference, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit using a constant false alarm method, that interference is present in the received signal.
However, Servadei teaches using a constant false alarm method, that interference is present in the received signal; [0073].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang with the CFAR as taught by Servadei so as to predictably determine the interference power and noise within a signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights