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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP, filed on March 23, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained in Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in Step 2B analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
The claims are directed geometric relationships and is thus considered mathematical.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether claims 22, 33, 36 and 41 recite additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
In addition to reciting the above-noted abstract ideas, the issue is whether the claims as a whole including various additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. In other words, do the claims as a whole produce any meaningful limits, i.e. improvement in technology?
The improvement appears to directed to an alternative and less complicated method for detecting alignment and possible misalignment of a radar transceiver by correctly determining roll and pitch to allow for correct target coordinate transformation to said radar transceiver coordinate transformation. See Spec. Pages 1 – 2.
The additional features are the radar transceiver and control unit. Here, the radar transceiver is claimed at a high level of generality for purpose of data gathering; e.g. transmitting and receiving to collect data, thus is considered extra solution activity.
The control unit is described as CPU, multiprocessor or digital processor and is shown in Figure 20 and thus appears to be a general purpose computer. See Spec. Para. 13.
Algorithms that can easily be performed in the mind or by hand or with the aid of a general-purpose computer. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC. v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First. Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Even though an improvement exists, the claimed subject matter is still abstract because all of the features discussed supra are either abstract, e.g., mathematical, or extra-solution activity. A claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
None of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claim invention. Rather, the additional limitations are directed to data gathering and data processing which is an extra-solution activity.
Step 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, the issue is whether the claims add any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, the issue is whether the ordered combination of structural features and/or steps are considered well-understand, routine and conventional or whether the ordered combination itself provides for an improvement of a particular structure. For example, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (BASCOM) provides, in summary, an example wherein the local computer, ISP server, internet computer network and controlled access network are generic computer and networking components that when taken individually do not amount to significantly more but taken together provided for an unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements that result in an improvement of filtering content thus amounting to significantly more.
As discussed supra, the improvement is directed to improved method of alignment as discussed supra. The specification states that the control unit is used to perform signal processing, e.g. mathematical calculations, and to control the radar. See Spec. Page 7. Note that none of the claimed features appear directed to the control unit controlling the radar. Further note that none of the features are directed to actually aligning the radar but rather just directed to calculations need for an actual alignment.
Processing circuitry is commonly used to process data from a sensor as well as controlling a sensor. Many devices in a home use processing circuitry to process data from a sensor such as a motion detector as well as to control the field-of-view of said motion detector. Thus, the use of a control unit with a radar is considered routine, well-understood and conventional. Again not that the claimed features do not appear to have the control unit controlling the radar thus the Examiner is not able to determine whether any such features, that if were included in the claims, would be considered routine, well-understood and conventional.
The improvement lies within the ordered mathematical geometric features (abstract), wherein all the other features are either extra-solution activity or considered routine, well-understood and conventional. The improvement is not claimed as having a nexus to an arrangement of particular components (not considered routine, well-understood or conventional) or a series of steps wherein an actual alignment is occurring. Again, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As such, the ordered combination of features is directed solely to abstract ideas, extra-solution activity and activity that is considered well-understood, routine and conventional as discussed supra. The same reasoning applies to the dependent claims.
The dependent claims discussed supra further define the abstract idea in the independent claims or add limitations which recite abstract ideas similar to the ones addressed above or provide for extra-solution activity and/or intended use. For example, the determination of target motion can be mathematical via Doppler equation and Fourier transforms. See claims 2 & 6. Least squares and Bayesian are mathematical. See claims 3 – 4 & 7 – 8. A platform for making a sensor mobile is also considered routine, well-understood and conventual. See claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights