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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 8 – line 12 – “the quality of the autocorrelation matrix can” sentence is incomplete.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation that is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is:
“means of” performing the function of spatial smoothing as recited in claim 1 (line 15 on page 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “a method for” in line 1 of page 1, which appears the claim is directed to a method. However, no process steps are claimed, making the statutory class unclear. Examiner will interpret the claim to be directed to a method in accordance to the interpretation recited below which includes process steps. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites variable “f, frequency measurement value vectors” in line 6 of page 1. It is unclear if “f” refers to the frequency measurement value vectors or if it refers to another variable. The limitation “f” is not defined by the claim making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is also unclear how a frequency measurement value vector can have coordinates “a” and “f” if “f” represents the frequency measurement value vectors. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret “f” to be an acronym for a frequency measurement value vector and will interpret “a measurement value matrix” to have coordinates “a” and “f” as explained on page 5, lines 12-13 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites variable “a”. It is unclear if “a” refers to the antenna measurement value vectors (as mentioned on page 1, lines 22-23 of the specification) or if it refers to another variable. The limitation “a” is not defined by the claim making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites variable “f >1“ in line 8 of page 1. It is unclear if “f” refers to the frequency measurement value vectors or if it refers to another variable. The limitation “f” is not defined by the claim making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is also unclear how a frequency measurement value vector can have coordinates “a” and “f” if “f” represents the frequency measurement value vectors. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret “f” to be an acronym for a frequency measurement value vector and will interpret “a measurement value matrix” to have coordinates “a” and “f” as explained on page 5, lines 12-13 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "in such a way" (in line 24 of page 1) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same number for all subspace matrices” in line 1 of page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite, “a same number for the subspace matrices” in order to have proper antecedent basis to the limitation appearing as the first instance. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in said order” in lines 1-2 of page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite, “in a given order” in order to have proper antecedent basis to the limitation appearing as the first instance. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "in such a way" (in line 6 of page 2) which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same number of frequency measurement value vectors” in line 8 of page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite, “a same number of the frequency measurement value vectors” in order to have proper antecedent basis to the limitation appearing as the first instance. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same number of modified frequency measurement value vectors” in line 13 of page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite, “a same number of modified frequency measurement value vectors” in order to have proper antecedent basis to the limitation appearing as the first instance. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claims 1-14, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For examination purposes the examiner will interpret claim 1 to recite as follows:
1. A method for providing an autocorrelation matrix of measurement values of wireless signals between a first and a second object, the method comprising:
determining at least one property of the signal propagation of the wireless signals between the first and the second object comprising:
a. providing a measurement value matrix having coordinates with antenna measurement value vectors (a), where a number of the coordinates of a is >=1, and with frequency measurement value vectors (f), where a number of the coordinates of f is >1, and wherein an autocorrelation matrix with a frequency vector number smaller than the number of the coordinates of f is formed from the frequency measurement value vectors (f) by means of spatial smoothing;
b. performing the spatial smoothing by, a plurality of subspace matrices each having the number of frequency measurement value vectors less than the number of the coordinates of f are formed and wherein the subspace matrices are each correlated with themselves and the subspace matrices are added up;
c. forming the subspace matrices by:
partially forming the subspace matrices by in each case by selecting a same number for the subspace matrices in a given order, or
forming a first subset of the subspace matrices wherein a subspace matrix of the first subset is formed in each case by selecting a same number of the frequency measurement value vectors (f) of the subspace matrices, wherein an arrangement of the selected frequency measurement value vectors in the subspace matrix is in a given order, and in that a second subset of the subspace matrices is formed such that a subspace matrix of the second subset is formed in each case by a selection of a same number of modified frequency measurement value vectors for the subspace matrices from a modified frequency measurement value vector set and in that the modified frequency measurement value vector set is formed by selecting measurement value vectors and reversing their order and inverting the complex or real component of all coordinates of the modified measurement value vector set, the arrangement of the selected frequency measurement value vectors in the subspace matrix of the second subset corresponding in each case to the reverse of said order.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a Process. Therefore, claim 1 fall in one of the 4 statutory classes.
Step 2a, Prong 1:
This step considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Claim 1 recites
A method for providing an autocorrelation matrix of measurement values of wireless signals between a first and a second object, the method comprising:
determining at least one property of the signal propagation of the wireless signals between the first and the second object comprising:
a. providing a measurement value matrix having coordinates with antenna measurement value vectors (a), where a number of the coordinates of a is >=1, and with frequency measurement value vectors (f), where a number of the coordinates of f is >1, and wherein an autocorrelation matrix with a frequency vector number smaller than the number of the coordinates of f is formed from the frequency measurement value vectors (f) by means of spatial smoothing;
b. performing the spatial smoothing by, a plurality of subspace matrices each having the number of frequency measurement value vectors less than the number of the coordinates of f are formed and wherein the subspace matrices are each correlated with themselves and the subspace matrices are added up;
c. forming the subspace matrices by:
partially forming the subspace matrices by in each case by selecting a same number for the subspace matrices in a given order, or
forming a first subset of the subspace matrices wherein a subspace matrix of the first subset is formed in each case by selecting a same number of the frequency measurement value vectors (f) of the subspace matrices, wherein an arrangement of the selected frequency measurement value vectors in the subspace matrix is in a given order, and in that a second subset of the subspace matrices is formed such that a subspace matrix of the second subset is formed in each case by a selection of a same number of modified frequency measurement value vectors for the subspace matrices from a modified frequency measurement value vector set and in that the modified frequency measurement value vector set is formed by selecting measurement value vectors and reversing their order and inverting the complex or real component of all coordinates of the modified measurement value vector set, the arrangement of the selected frequency measurement value vectors in the subspace matrix of the second subset corresponding in each case to the reverse of said order.
Therefore, the limitations are directed to “A method for providing an autocorrelation matrix ”, which is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. “A method for providing an autocorrelation matrix” is considered to be a mathematical concept because it is based off of a mathematical calculation.
Step 2a, Prong 2:
This step considers whether the claim recites any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b:
This step considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. Claim 1 as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-14 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 and recites the following additional elements:
Step 2a, Prong 2: Claim 10, which depends in claim 1, recites the following additional element(s): receiving and transmitting devices; and transmitting and receiving antennas. These additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment of radars (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 10 is also directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b: For claim 10, which depends on claim 1, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment of radars, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 10 is also ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under
35 U.S.C. 101, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The present invention is directed towards providing an autocorrelation matrix of measurement values using spatial smoothing and subspace matrices. Independent claim 1 teaches the novel and non-obvious features of:
determining at least one property of the signal propagation of the wireless signals between the first and the second object comprising:
a. providing a measurement value matrix having coordinates with antenna measurement value vectors (a), where a number of the coordinates of a is >=1, and with frequency measurement value vectors (f), where a number of the coordinates of f is >1, and wherein an autocorrelation matrix with a frequency vector number smaller than the number of the coordinates of f is formed from the frequency measurement value vectors (f) by means of spatial smoothing;
b. performing the spatial smoothing by, a plurality of subspace matrices each having the number of frequency measurement value vectors less than the number of the coordinates of f are formed and wherein the subspace matrices are each correlated with themselves and the subspace matrices are added up;
c. forming the subspace matrices by:
partially forming the subspace matrices by in each case by selecting a same number for the subspace matrices in a given order, or
forming a first subset of the subspace matrices wherein a subspace matrix of the first subset is formed in each case by selecting a same number of the frequency measurement value vectors (f) of the subspace matrices, wherein an arrangement of the selected frequency measurement value vectors in the subspace matrix is in a given order, and in that a second subset of the subspace matrices is formed such that a subspace matrix of the second subset is formed in each case by a selection of a same number of modified frequency measurement value vectors for the subspace matrices from a modified frequency measurement value vector set and in that the modified frequency measurement value vector set is formed by selecting measurement value vectors and reversing their order and inverting the complex or real component of all coordinates of the modified measurement value vector set, the arrangement of the selected frequency measurement value vectors in the subspace matrix of the second subset corresponding in each case to the reverse of said order.
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the
claimed invention:
"An Improved Spatial Smoothing Technique for DoA Estimation of Highly Correlated Signals", Avi Abu, Engineering Letter, 19:1, EL 10 1 02 (Advance online publication: 10 February 2011), hereinafter Abu: Abu generally relates to an improved spatial smoothing technique for direction of arrival (DoA) estimation of highly correlated signals. Abu discloses formation of autocorrelation matrix by means of spatial smoothing using subarrays (see page 2, section III of Abu). However, Abu is silent to providing a measurement value matrix having coordinates with antenna measurement value vectors (a), where a number of the coordinates of a is >=1, and with frequency measurement value vectors (f), where a number of the coordinates of f is >1. Abu is further silent to a frequency vector number smaller than the number of the coordinates of f.
“An enhanced spatial smoothing technique with ESPRIT algorithm for direction of arrival estimation in coherent scenarios”, Pan et al., IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 2020, 68, pp.3635-3643, hereinafter Pan: Pan generally relates to an enhanced spatial smoothing technique for DoA estimation in coherent scenarios. Pan discloses the spatial smoothing technique using plurality of subarrays (see page 4, section III of Pan). However, Pan is silent to each having the number of frequency measurement value vectors less than the number of the coordinates of f are formed and wherein the subspace matrices are each correlated with themselves and the subspace matrices are added up.
Neither Abu nor Pan discloses:
forming the subspace matrices by:
partially forming the subspace matrices by in each case by selecting a same number for the subspace matrices in a given order, or
forming a first subset of the subspace matrices wherein a subspace matrix of the first subset is formed in each case by selecting a same number of the frequency measurement value vectors (f) of the subspace matrices, wherein an arrangement of the selected frequency measurement value vectors in the subspace matrix is in a given order, and in that a second subset of the subspace matrices is formed such that a subspace matrix of the second subset is formed in each case by a selection of a same number of modified frequency measurement value vectors for the subspace matrices from a modified frequency measurement value vector set and in that the modified frequency measurement value vector set is formed by selecting measurement value vectors and reversing their order and inverting the complex or real component of all coordinates of the modified measurement value vector set, the arrangement of the selected frequency measurement value vectors in the subspace matrix of the second subset corresponding in each case to the reverse of said order.
Therefore, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach,
render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the
combination of the claimed features of claim 1.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as
claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on
improper hindsight bias.
Regarding claims 2-14, they depend on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Nie, Xi et al. (CN 108710101 A): discloses an algorithm separates the coherent signal subspace from a signal subspace by utilizing the orthogonality of a column vector of a transition matrix, constructs a correlation matrix by utilizing the coherent signal subspace, and restores an order of the correlation matrix by utilizing spatial smoothing technology on the correlation matrix, and finally processes the correlation matrix after restoration of the order, thereby estimating an arrival direction of the coherent signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMISH P. HATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9508. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 8.30 am to 5.30 pm ET.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270 7792. 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.
/NIMISH P. HATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights