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 .
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 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong | 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 because as explained in Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
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 method of claim 1 is directed to the limitations “receiving radar data, the radar data captured by a radar device of the vehicle and being indicative of an environment in which the vehicle operates, the radar data including interference; performing temporal signal reconstruction on the radar data prior to performing a fast Fourier transform (FFT) on the radar data to generate first filtered data, wherein the FFT generates ranging data using the first filtered data; performing spectral signal reconstruction on the ranging data subsequent to performing the FFT on the ranging data to generate second filtered data; and detecting an object in the environment based at least in part on the second filtered data” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 2 is directed to the limitations “the temporal signal reconstruction comprises performing a detection stage and a reconstruction stage to detect interference values within the radar data and interpolate replacement values to replace the interference value” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 3 is directed to the limitations “the detection stage comprises determining a median absolute value of time samples for each chirp across a plurality of chirps of the radar data, determining a third quartile of median values, determining an interquartile range (IQR) using subtraction of the third quartile and a first quartile, and identifying outliers based on a first threshold” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 3 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 4 is directed to the limitations “the detection stage comprises a first detection phase, and wherein the temporal signal reconstruction further comprises a second detection stage, wherein the second detection stage comprises determining a third quartile of absolute samples values across chirps of a plurality of chirps for each time index, determining the interquartile range (IQR) using subtraction of the third quartile of the absolute samples values and a first quartile of the absolute samples values, and identifying outliers based on a second threshold” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 4 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 5 is directed to the limitations “the reconstruction stage comprises detecting which points within the radar data are greater than the first threshold, and interpolating the replacement values to replace the points greater than the first threshold based on neighboring points” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 5 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 6 is directed to the limitations “the temporal signal reconstruction comprises performing a first detection stage, a first restoration stage, a second detection stage, and a second reconstruction stage to detect interference values within the radar data and interpolate values to replace the interference values” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 7 is directed to the limitations “the spectral signal reconstruction comprises performing a detection stage and a reconstruction stage to detect interference values within the ranging data and interpolate values to replace the interference values, wherein the detection stage comprises determining a median absolute value of range samples for each of a plurality of chirps of the ranging data, determining a third quartile of the median values, determining an interquartile range (IQR) using a subtraction of a third quartile and a first quartile, and identifying outliers based on a first threshold” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 8 is directed to the limitations “the detection phase comprises a first detection phase, and wherein the temporal signal reconstruction further comprises a second detection stage, wherein the second detection stage comprises determining a third quartile of absolute samples values across the chirps of the plurality of chirps for each range index, determining the IQR using subtraction of the third quartile of the absolute samples values and a first quartile of the absolute samples values, and identifying outliers based on a second threshold” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 9 is directed to the limitations “the reconstruction stage comprises detecting which points within the ranging data are greater than the first threshold, and interpolating replacement values to replace the points greater than the first threshold based on neighboring points” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 10 is directed to the limitations “the spectral signal reconstruction comprises performing a first detection stage, a first restoration stage, a second detection stage, and a second reconstruction stage to detect interference values within the ranging data and interpolate values to replace the interference values” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 20 is directed to the limitations “receiving radar data, the radar data captured by a radar device of a vehicle and being indicative of an environment in which the vehicle operates, the radar data including interference; performing initial filtering on the radar data using a low pass filter to generate filtered radar data; converting the filtered radar data from analog signals into digital form to generate digital filtered radar data; performing temporal signal reconstruction on the digital filtered radar data to generate first filtered data; performing a range fast Fourier transform (FFT) to convert the first filtered data from a time domain to a frequency domain to generate ranging data; performing spatial signal reconstruction on the ranging data to generate second filtered data; performing a doppler FFT to analyze a frequency shift of the second filtered data; performing digital beam forming after the doppler FFT; and detecting an object in the environment based at least in part on the second filtered data subsequent to performing the doppler FFT and the digital beam forming.” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar data” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 20 recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2:
Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether the claims 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?
A computer (claim 1).
The additional limitations are directed data gathering and data processing and therefore, None of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claim invention. Rather, the additional limitations are directed 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 adds 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).
The issue is whether the claims as a whole including the additional limitations, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. In other words, the issue is whether the additional elements in combination (as well as individually) amount to an inventive concept.
Again, the additional limitations are directed to mere data gathering and data processing which is “well-understood, routine, and conventional’ activity in the field. Thus, the additional limitations alone or in combination do not amount to an inventive concept.
Overall all the claims are directed to a three dimensional deformation field modeling, which is in and of itself an abstract idea because said modeling is a mental process and perhaps data manipulation thus possibly extra-solution activity. 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 or extra-solution activity as discussed supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 are allowed.
Claims 1-10 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Achatz et al (US 20230350056) does not teach nor make obvious (claim 1, 11, and 20) performing spectral signal reconstruction on the ranging data subsequent to performing the FFT on the ranging data to generate second filtered data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights