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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues
1) obtaining a virtual array signal of a range-Doppler bin, computing an angle spectrum for the range-Doppler bin, providing an intermediate signal V by performing a set of detailed steps, providing a test signal W by performing a set of detailed steps, detecting non-noise content, and classifying the virtual array signal.
Response: the operation merely collects data, processes data and the output the result of data. The output is not used to filter out future or current data, control a device based on the data. In other words the output is not being used in a practical result, it is merely classifying the data.
2) claims 1, 11, and 12 recite highly detailed complex steps that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Examples of these steps include: "computing an angle spectrum for the range- Doppler bin;" "selecting a first leading peak in the angle spectrum of the virtual array signal, applying to the virtual array signal an inverse phase-shift vector at (Φ₁) X a* (Φ₁) corresponding to an estimated phase Φ₁ of the first leading peak, and subtracting a constant signal with an amplitude corresponding to the first leading peak;" and "applying to the intermediate signal an inverse phase-shift vector (Φ) X X (Φ) corresponding to an estimated offset phase Д, which relates the first and a second leading peak in the angle spectrum of the virtual array signal, wherein the first and second leading peaks are the two largest peaks in the angle spectrum."
Response: the data doesn’t need to be a particularly large data set. The operations can be performed with a pen and a sheet of paper or could be performed by a general purpose computer.
3) Sirf tech, SRI int’l, Synopsys, and Research Corp Techs were found not be abstract ideas.
Response Sirf Tech case was with regard to a particular machine performing what could not be done a human, receiving signals from GPS satellites. The current claims do not have a particular machine and does not receive signals. SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems involves deploying a plurality of networking monitors in an enterprise network and detecting within the network activity suspicious activity which is a particular machine in a particular environment. The current claims merely receives data and performs a calculation and determines if it is multipath artefact or not. The method does not require a particular machine being deployed in a particular way. With regard to Synopsys., 839 F.3d at 1148, 120 USPQ2d at 1481, while the claims were determined to not be practically performed in the human mind they the claims were held to be invalid under 101. The case is further described in <PEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) as A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process. Research Corp Tech was directed at claims they improved the performance of a computer and they is nothing on the record that indicates that the current claims improve the operation of a computer or any particular machine.
4) claims 1, 11, and 12 recite several highly detailed steps that clearly link the subject matter to a specific technological environment, namely, that of a time-division multiplexing (TDM) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar, wherein the TDM MIMO FMCW radar comprises at least one row of physical receivers with a first spacing in a first direction, and further comprises a plurality of physical transmitters arranged with a second spacing dₜ in said first direction. This is clearly a highly specific technological environment.
Response: the particular radar is recited in the preamble of the claim and is not used in the body of the claims the radar therefore does not carry patentable weight in the claim.
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 1-12 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, 11, and 12 is directed to the limitations “computing an angle spectrum for the range-Doppler bin; providing an intermediate signal v by: selecting a first leading peak in the angle spectrum of the virtual array signal, applying to the virtual array signal an inverse phase-shift vector corresponding to an estimated phase, of the first leading peak, and subtracting a constant signal with an amplitude corresponding to the first leading peak; providing a test signal w by: applying to the intermediate signal an inverse phase-shift vector corresponding to an estimated offset phase Ad, which relates the first and a second leading peak in the angle spectrum of the virtual array signal, wherein the first and second leading peaks are the two largest peaks in the angle spectrum, and subtracting a constant signal; detecting non-noise content of the test signal; if the test signal has non-noise content, concluding that the virtual array signal contains a first-order multipath artefact; and, if the test signal has noise content only, concluding that the first leading peak corresponds to a direct reflection in the scene” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal” 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 offset phase is computed based on the angle spectrum of the virtual array signal” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal” 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 “computing an angle spectrum of the intermediate signal v, and selecting a leading peak in the angle spectrum of the intermediate signal, wherein said leading peak has the greatest amplitude in the angle spectrum, wherein the offset phase Ad corresponds to an estimated angle of the selected leading peak” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal” 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 constant signal subtracted from the intermediate signal has an amplitude corresponding to the selected leading peak” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal 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 detection of non-noise content includes a ratio test which compares a signal energy of the constant signal, which is subtracted from the intermediate signal, and a total signal energy of the intermediate signal v” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal” 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 “obtaining a noise floor of the virtual array signal z, wherein the detection of non-noise content of the test signal w is performed subject to the noise floor” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal” 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 8 is directed to the limitations “computing each angle spectrum includes performing a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) with respect to consecutive virtual antenna elements” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal” 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 “assessing whether the offset phase corresponds to an angle giving rise to a path-length difference of an integer number of wavelengths with respect to the first spacing, of the physical receivers or the second spacing d, of the physical transmitters” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 10 is directed to the limitations “obtaining a virtual array signal x relating to a scene, each element of the virtual array signal corresponding to one virtual antenna element of a virtual array of the TDM MIMO FMCW radar; computing an angle spectrum for one range-Doppler bin of the virtual array signal; counting the number of peaks in the angle spectrum; if the angle spectrum has a single peak, concluding that it corresponds to a second-order multipath artefact or a direct reflection in the scene; and if the angle spectrum has at least two peaks, concluding that it corresponds to two first- order multipath artefacts or two direct reflections in the scene” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “virtual array signal” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 10 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?
(claim 1) obtaining a virtual array signal z of a range-Doppler bin relating to a scene, each element of the virtual array signal corresponding to one virtual antenna element of the virtual array.
(claim 11) signal processing device.
(claim 12) a computer program, a signal processing device having a processor and a memory.
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.
The additional limitations of (claim 1 and 11) the TDM MIMO FMCW radar comprises at least one row of physical receivers with a first spacing d,. in a first direction, and further comprises a plurality of physical transmitters arranged with a second spacing d, in said first direction, and (claim 7) the ratio of the first and second spacings, is such that the virtual antenna elements of the virtual array are equidistant in the first direction merely describe the radar device which the multipath ambiguity will be resolved from and are not part of the method claim and therefore do not have patentable weight and are therefore cannot be considered additional elements of the claim.
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 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: Chen et al (US 20200233076) do not teach nor make obvious (claim 1, 11, and 12) applying to the intermediate signal an inverse phase-shift vector corresponding to an estimated offset phase, which relates the first and a second leading peak in the angle spectrum of the virtual array signal, wherein the first and second leading peaks are the two largest peaks in the angle spectrum, and subtracting a constant signal.
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, 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648