DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on October 9, 2024, claims 1-20 have been examined this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/9/2024 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claims 10-20 is/are drawn to device (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite 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).
Representative Claim 1: A method of processing a radar signal, the method comprising: receiving real data of a radar signal through an I-channel; performing a range-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that converts the real data into complex data and calculates a range; performing a Doppler-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that calculates a Doppler velocity; and overlapping a phase difference of the radar signals that generates phase difference data and applying a Gaussian function to the phase difference data that calculates an angle.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of: receiving data, performing FFT, converting data and applying a Gaussian (i.e., mathematical relationships), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the steps of applying a Gaussian to data to calculate an angle (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-18, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea by generating a time range map or a time angle map (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “radar,” “processor,” and “receiver,” etc. (Claims 1, 10 and 19) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “radar,” “processor,” and “receiver,” etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19, and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., processing, receiving, estimating, Gaussian, Doppler, and smoothing, etc. steps performed by a predictive model, machine learning algorithms, a communication interface, a memory, a processor, a computational device etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of a method of processing a radar signal, the method comprising:
receiving real data of a radar signal through an I-channel;
performing a range-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that converts the real data into complex data and calculates a range;
performing a Doppler-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that calculates a Doppler velocity;
and overlapping a phase difference of the radar signals that generates phase difference data and applying a Gaussian function to the phase difference data that calculates an angle (Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 2-9, 11-18, and 20, fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole-amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 19, and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of smoothing process (Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. training a resolution increasing model, receiving a data signal (i.e. obtaining data) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at [page 1, 0003] acknowledges that “in general, a radar signal processing device includes a radar sensor, a processor, and a memory. The radar sensor transmits a radar signal toward an object using a transmitting antenna and receives a radar signal reflected from the object using a receiving antenna,” (i.e. conventional nature of receiving radar data over a network). This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-9, 10-18, and 20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al (Sensors, 2016) in view of Lv et al (Sensors, 2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Hyun teaches a method of processing a radar signal, the method comprising [page 3, 3rd paragraph for receiving a beat signal that is digitized by an ADC]:
receiving real data of a radar signal through an I-channel [page 3, 5th paragraph for getting a beat signal reflected from a target with radar];
performing a range-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that converts the real data into complex data and calculates a range [page 3, equation (2) and last two paragraph for using an FFT in the frequency domain for beat signal];
performing a Doppler-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that calculates a Doppler velocity [page 4, first two paragraphs and equation (3) for using a 2D FFT and range Doppler map for a moving (velocity) pedestrian];
and overlapping a phase difference of the radar signals that generates phase difference data [page 4, last paragraph and equation (4) for detecting Doppler frequency and arbitrary phase difference].
Hyun fails to explicitly teach and applying a Gaussian function to the phase difference data that calculates an angle.
Lv has a non-contact heartbeat rate monitoring system (abstract) and teaches and applying a Gaussian function to the phase difference data that calculates an angle [page 10, and figure 9 for Gaussian low pass smoothing filter and showing the respiratory changes].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the Gaussian calculations as taught by Lv for the purpose to extract the respiratory signal (Lv, page 9, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 10, Hyun teaches a radar signal processing device, comprising [page 3, 3rd paragraph for receiving a beat signal that is digitized by an ADC]:
a radar sensor that transmits a radar signal toward an object and receives real data of the radar signal reflected from the object through an I-channel [page 3, 5th paragraph for getting a beat signal reflected from a target with radar];
and a processor that performs a range-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal and that converts the real data into complex data and calculates a range [page 3, equation (2) and last two paragraph for using an FFT in the frequency domain for beat signal],
performs a Doppler-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that calculates a Doppler velocity [page 4, first two paragraphs and equation (3) for using a 2D FFT and range Doppler map for a moving (velocity) pedestrian],
overlaps a phase difference of the radar signals that generates phase difference data [page 4, last paragraph and equation (4) for detecting Doppler frequency and arbitrary phase difference].
Hyun fails to explicitly teach and applies a Gaussian function to the phase difference data that calculates an angle.
Lv has a non-contact heartbeat rate monitoring system (abstract) and teaches and applies a Gaussian function to the phase difference data that calculates an angle [page 10, and figure 9 for Gaussian low pass smoothing filter and showing the respiratory changes].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the Gaussian calculations as taught by Lv for the purpose to extract the respiratory signal (Lv, page 9, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 19, Hyun teaches a display device, comprising [page 7, second paragraph for using a cardiovascular monitor]:
a display panel that includes pixels [page 7, figure 5 for having a monitor display and a laptop screen];
a data driver that provides a data voltage to the display panel [page 7, figure 5];
a driving controller that controls the data driver [page 7, figure 5];
and a radar signal processing device that provides radar data to the driving controller, wherein the radar signal processing device includes [page 3, 3rd paragraph for receiving a beat signal that is digitized by an ADC]:
a radar sensor that transmits a radar signal toward an object and receives real data of the radar signal reflected from the object through an I-channel [page 3, 5th paragraph for getting a beat signal reflected from a target with radar];
and a processor that performs a range-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that converts the real data into complex data and calculates a range [page 3, equation (2) and last two paragraph for using an FFT in the frequency domain for beat signal],
performs a Doppler-fast Fourier transform on the radar signal that calculates a Doppler velocity [page 4, first two paragraphs and equation (3) for using a 2D FFT and range Doppler map for a moving (velocity) pedestrian],
overlaps a phase difference of the radar signals that generates phase difference data.
[page 4, last paragraph and equation (4) for detecting Doppler frequency and arbitrary phase difference].
Hyun fails to explicitly teach and applies a Gaussian function to the phase difference data that calculates an angle.
Lv has a non-contact heartbeat rate monitoring system (abstract) and teaches and applies a Gaussian function to the phase difference data that calculates an angle [page 10, and figure 9 for Gaussian low pass smoothing filter and showing the respiratory changes].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the Gaussian calculations as taught by Lv for the purpose to extract the respiratory signal (Lv, page 9, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 2, 11, and 20, Hyun teaches the radar signal is a FMCW (Frequency-Modulated Continuous Wave) radar signal [page 3, 4th paragraph for using narrow beam FMCW pulse and receiving the echo].
Regarding Claim 7 and 16, Hyun fails to explicitly teach the Gaussian function applies a weight to the phase difference of the radar signals.
Lv has a non-contact heartbeat rate monitoring system (abstract) and teaches the Gaussian function applies a weight to the phase difference of the radar signals [page 9, last paragraph for a Gaussian low-pass smoothing filter to extract the respiratory signal, and then determined the duration of each breath by looking for the waveform peak in].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the Gaussian calculations as taught by Lv for the purpose to extract the respiratory signal (Lv, page 9, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 8 and 17, Hyun fails to explicitly teach the Gaussian function has a maximum weight value at an average value of the Gaussian function.
Lv has a non-contact heartbeat rate monitoring system (abstract) and teaches the Gaussian function has a maximum weight value at an average value of the Gaussian function [page 9, last paragraph for a Gaussian low-pass smoothing filter to extract the respiratory signal, and then determined the duration of each breath by looking for the waveform peak in].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the Gaussian calculations as taught by Lv for the purpose to extract the respiratory signal (Lv, page 9, last paragraph).
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al (Sensors, 2016) in view of Lv et al (Sensors, 2021), as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Cho et al (US 2020/0400810 A1).
Regarding Claim 3 and 12, Hyun fails to explicitly teach generating a time-range map based on the range; generating a time-Doppler map based on the Doppler velocity; and generating a time-angle map based on the angle.
Cho has a method of increasing a resolution of radar data (abstract) and teaches generating a time-range map based on the range [0159 for range-Doppler map and a range-angle map];
generating a time-Doppler map based on the Doppler velocity [0166 for micro-Doppler data indicating a change in Doppler frequency based on a change in time];
and generating a time-angle map based on the angle [0165-0166 for data related operation may need to be designed to extract data of a horizontal angle and an elevation angle].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the Doppler calculations as taught by Cho for the purpose to generate the low-resolution input data by performing a range FFT and DBF on the raw radar data (Cho, 0159).
Regarding Claim 4 and 13, Hyun fails to explicitly teach the time-range map, the time-Doppler map, and the time-angle map are two-dimensional maps.
Cho has a method of increasing a resolution of radar data (abstract) and teaches the time-range map, the time-Doppler map, and the time-angle map are two-dimensional maps [0055 for a range-Doppler map and a range-angle map].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the Doppler calculations as taught by Cho for the purpose to generate a map from a single scan (Cho, 0055).
Regarding Claim 5 and 14, Hyun fails to explicitly teach training a resolution increasing model using the time-range map, the time-Doppler map, and the time-angle map.
Cho has a method of increasing a resolution of radar data (abstract) and teaches training a resolution increasing model using the time-range map, the time-Doppler map, and the time-angle map [0102-0105 for a high-resolution training ground truth from the original raw radar data].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the Doppler calculations as taught by Cho for the purpose to generate a map from a single scan (Cho, 0055).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al (Sensors, 2016) in view of Lv et al (Sensors, 2021), as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2023/0176187 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 and 15, Hyun teaches the radar signal includes a chirp signal, and the angle is calculated for each period of the chirp signal.
Kim has Transmitting antennas and receiving antennas are arranged such that a plurality of virtual antennas have the same position in a time-division-multiplexed frequency modulated continuous wave (abstract) and teaches a chirp signal, and the angle is calculated for each period of the chirp signal [0067 and 0097 for radar apparatus measures a phase difference between at least three chirp signals respectively positioned in consecutive time slots].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the chirp calculations as taught by Kim for the purpose to generate a measurement vector from measure phase differences (Kim, 0097).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al (Sensors, 2016) in view of Lv et al (Sensors, 2021), as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Winter et al (US 6130638 B).
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Hyun teaches the average value of the Gaussian function is determined based on a signal strength of the phase difference data.
Winter has a method and device for determining an azimuth angle and/or an elevation angle, based on a multibeam radar system (abstract) and teaches the average value of the Gaussian function is determined based on a signal strength of the phase difference data [col 3, lines 20-45 for second difference function P(a) based on phase difference (p determined between the echo Signals from at least two receiving beams].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the radar processing techniques, as disclosed by Hyun, further including the phase calculations as taught by Winter for the purpose to generate an amplitude comparison based on the phase differences (Winter, col 3, lines 20-45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsui et al (US 2017/0307745 A1) has a transmission unit includes a transmission antenna for transmitting a signal of a first frequency and a signal of a second frequency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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 on 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights